Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

P4 Forum

Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 27, 2001 6:36:00 PM

I went to a launch in Brisbane of the P4 processor, It was said that intel spent $43 billion in developing the cpu, I would have thought that they would have spent at least $100,000 telling thier staff about it, they knew less than nothing, I asked why all results showed the P4 slower than AMD's in everything except SSE apps and Quake 3, didnt know that, Also asked why, if the P4 was so good, that there was talk of the P5 already, didnt know that either, Asked why P4's only supported RDRam,they said that the cpu's shipped with the ram and it was unlikely that people would need any more, the P4 1.4mhz will come with 128m, which is hardly enough, Im running 128m on a 266 sys I have, and RDRam will be horrendously expensive out here, They also said that Intel are working on DDR support for the P4 and it should be available in about 12 months, by which time the P5 will probably be out, either that or AMD will be so far ahead it wont matter,After the launch I have serious worries about intel, The market needs them to be strong, the last thing anyone wants is AMD to become complacent like intel did

More about : forum

Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 27, 2001 6:50:04 PM

I think it's standard practice for these people to play ignorant when they are confronted by someone asking embarrassing questions about a product they are trying to support. When you know you can't give a good reponse then just play stupid-- "oh really, I wasn't aware of that. I'm going to take a look into that one."

I don't think we have to worry about AMD becoming complacent -- I think we have to worry about Intel getting tired of AMD nipping at their heels all the time and then Intel gets fedup takes them over/buys them out -- then Intel becomes even more complacent.

I've seen stranger things happen.




Take Care.
Yes,I know I'm immature, but my goal is insanity!
February 27, 2001 7:26:19 PM

I don't think the new chip will actually be named a P5. It's still just a P4, but at a .13micron etching instead of a .18. So it should have penty of room for extra components in the same die size. If anything, it will be the P4 as the engineers had designed it instead of the hacked-up oddity that the Willamette(sp?) is.

And when that happens, you better believe it'll blow what we know as the P4 out of the water and into tiny bits, because it won't have only half of the FPU it was meant to have anymore.

As for anyone having to worry about AMD going complacent, first AMD has to actually prove that they are better than Intel in EVERY market before anyone can even start worrying about that. Honestly, I don't see AMD as likely to ever accomplish this. They make fast chips with a good FPU. But so far they haven't proven that they can do anything more than copy a P3 architecture and improve on a design that was already growing long in the tooth when they did come out with the Athlon. We have yet to see AMD do anything truely original.

Meanwhile, now that AMD has shocked Intel into action by actually providing decent competition, Intel is coming out with some very interesting components and proving again why they're still on top.

My only worry is that if AMD's Hammers aren't just as interesting as Intel's P4 and Itanium are, then AMD is going to go back to just producing cheap clones and we'll lose the competition that has making the PC world actually interesting.

I don't think we have to worry about Intel buying out AMD though. Either AMD will remain strong enough to avoid that occurance, or they'll fail somehow and become so minimal of a threat to Intel that Intel just won't care about their existance anymore. Either way, they won't be bought out. I'm hoping for the former myself. :) 

- Sanity is purely based on point-of-view.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 27, 2001 7:53:31 PM

i just skimmed a little article on the new p4 "northwood" and it hinted that it will be SMT capable. i'm not really sure what this is. it said something about enabling multiple cpu's on the same chip to act as one. does this mean 2 processors or is this alluding to multiple fpu's.
February 27, 2001 9:32:49 PM

I dont believe it, sounds like AMD propoganda to me.

People talking of P5?? you mean itanium?

If they were showing off the .13 micro version of the P4 then you prob stuck your foot in your mouth about any and all test vs it since no one has done benchmarks with it @ .13 other than Intel themselves and a handfull of OEM's who are building 3rd party mobo's.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 27, 2001 9:33:18 PM

smt is really really cool. you only have one cpu, but it acts as multiple cpu's (2, in the northwoods case), this means that the processor can process more data while its waiting for the subsystem to catch up, helping eliminate bottlenecks. i dont really know too much about it cos every article ive started reading about it gets really boring. but suffice to say, itll be cool.

LEGAL DISCLAIMER: cape does not enable user to fly.
February 27, 2001 11:12:54 PM

I agree with you completely. AMD has had Intel in a reaction mode, throwing out products that were not ready, or were pushed beyond their limits (remember the 1.13 ghz?). It is a shame that the P4 was released as it was, crippled, with many major features left out.

It is hard to say how well future AMD products will fare. It sounds like they are on the right track, with their next 64 bit processor capable of running 32 bit apps as fast as current x86 processors (according to AMD, anyway).

If not for AMD we would not have much more then a 500mhz P2 or P3. Intel sat on their laurels, and was shocked by the Athlon.

Whether you like AMD or not, they jumpstarted the race to 1Ghz, forcing Intel to respond, and hopefully will force Intel to come out with a great chip at a competitive price. We all win this way, whether you buy AMD or Intel.

Besides, I own stock in both companies, and have taken a beating with Intel. I want (need) them to recover. Time to get on the AMD bandwagon, while their stock is still under 25.
February 27, 2001 11:14:50 PM

Quote:
the P4 1.4mhz will come with 128m


Sweet... I've always wanted a 1.4MHz PIV! Now I can finally throw away my Atari 2600.

-----------------
"648kb is all the space anyone would ever need!"

Bill Gates, 1980s
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 28, 2001 6:50:45 PM

Thanks for your comments guys, Its good to have a discussion about things without it being hijacked by someone trying to boost post counts, reminds me why I came here in the first place.
February 28, 2001 7:00:15 PM

yeah, i guess wusy just hasn't found this thread yet :) 

Competition is always good, and although I love my t-bird, i'll be one of the first to toss it when intel provides a better chip for less money, or cyrix for that matter :) 

....ok, so i won't "toss it", but it won't be my primary system.
February 28, 2001 7:25:37 PM

AMD definately caught Intel with their butts in a rut. I've been greatly enjoying the battle between the two companies for faster chips at lower prices.

Of course, it also pissed me off because had AMD not come along my P1-133 would have only been marginally slow today. But because of the competition it's just completely antiquated. There are systems for less today that would run benchmarks easily twenty times faster. I didn't pay two grand for it way back when just to have it so rapidly outdated.

But hey, I like the new clock speeds and all they they allow software to do, so I'm in a state of mixed annoyance and pleasure. Mostly pleasure though. I can always buy a new system. :) 

But the new stuff from Intel looks like it's going to severely whack AMD upside the head. The 1.13GHz P3 and the P4 were rushed and made us all laugh at Intel. But the Northwood sounds like the exact opposite and so supremely advanced over a P3 that we might as well just turn a P3 into the low-end system that the Celeron is now.

AMD is going to suffer badly if the Northwood is even half as good as it sounds. They'll totally lose their 32bit sector because (as far as I've heard) all that they're offering there are the .13micron upgrades of their Athlon and Duron, while the Northwood will just rock AMD's 32bit chips into the low-end sector along with Intel's .13micron P3.

I think AMD's only hope is that Intel won't push as hard into the 64bit sector. So AMD will reign with 64bit chips while Intel rocks the 32bit world. But I'm not seeing any significant signs of 32bit life from AMD, and that scares me. Especially since there are already other 64bit chips, so it isn't like AMD could gain a large hold on that sector anyway.

Why does that scare me? Because Intel IS working on 64bit chips as well. And they're bound to be just as advanced as the Northwood. And if Intel can even match AMD in the 64bit market and totally crush AMD's 32bit market, then AMD is going to lose a LOT of new customers. And if that happens, AMD will eventually turn into just another 'Pentium Clone' like Cyrix.

And if that happens, we'll lose this competition that has breathed so much life into the computer world.

And on another note, what I don't understand in the least is why people seem to think that the 64bit chips will run 32bit applications any slower than a 32bit chip. When we changed from 16bit chips to 32bit chips did we see ANY performance degridation? Not a bit. Why should 64bit ramping be ANY different from that?

- Sanity is purely based on point-of-view.
February 28, 2001 7:56:21 PM

You need to pull your head out of Intel's arse. Do you wack your peepee at night to images of Intel chips?

Northwood, Crapwood, whatever it's called aint gonna whack AMD upside the head. You might be whacking yourself to a Northwood but that's about all the whacking that's gonna happen.

You don't know squat about AMD or the innovations they've brought to this industry. Aside from making chips that run x86 code, they haven't cloned a Intel chip since the 486. If you want a run down of AMD innovations, some that even Intel has copied, let me know.

And why would AMD reign in the 64-bit world and not the 32-bit world. The Hammer chips, both the Claw and Sledge varieties, will have the best of both worlds, being able to run both 32-bit and 64-bit x86 code with equal aplomb. If anything, people will buy the AMD Hammer chips over the P4 because of their ability to run 64-bit software, even if people have no need for a 64-bit capable processor.

Also, AMD and the Athlon aren't going to be crushed anytime soon. The Thoroughbred version of Athlon will be capable of hitting at least 2.4GHz. The Athlon scales better, performance wise, than Intel's hacked off abortion processor P4. As long as the Athlon stays within 500MHz of the P4 they remain competitive. Since the Athlon has plenty of room to grow still, it gives AMD plenty of time to ready the Hammer chips, with which Intel will have a hard time competing with, regardless of what Intel does with the P4 or Itanic.

Your rosey outlook for Intel is extremely optimistic and very naive if I must say so.
February 28, 2001 8:27:02 PM

Try as we might you will never predict the future! I don't think we have to worry that much about one breaking away from each other, not anytime soon. AMD is working on some really cool stuff like the hypertransport read up on it http://www.amd.com/news/prodpr/21042.html

And I am sure that Intel is doing it's own thing. The other nice thing is that AMD chips will soon support SSE2 that will be nice to see how well they support it vs intel. I don't get why some people get so upset over these two companies. Hey they both make great products.

I am disappointed with intel for releasing the p4 with out dual support.

When the hell is AMD going to finally do it?

Bottom line is that both companies have made huge mistakes in the road that has brought them here both will make more but look at the great strides these companies have made. Have you guys looked at clock speeds lately?

I have a dual p3 800
and a Tbird 1Ghz

both serve their purpose but I do love my gigy
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 1, 2001 1:32:16 AM

Lets not forget how good intel used to be, early on in the piece when they still didnt really have much competition they brought out some really good stuff, Its intels own fault that they became complacent and let AMD take over the large share of the market that they now enjoy, The Africans have a saying, You can look at a sleeping elephant, or sneak around it, but dont wake it up, Intel was a sleeping elephant, and they have been well and truly woken up by AMD, it should be interesting to see what happens
March 1, 2001 2:39:50 PM

Is that what YOU do with an amd box? be careful you might burn your pp, Innovations? haha, Amd has no innovations! K6(intel knock-off)K7(Alpha knock-off, courtesy of the FTC)

the ONLY innovation they came up with was to devalue their own chips and undercut Intel!

IBM, Motorola, DEC, Intel, Sun, and Others are innovators Amd is not on that list!

"Amd cpu...Gone in -60 secs!"
March 1, 2001 3:17:46 PM

What a Mexican. Do a little research before you make up your might to come in here and ramble on about shitz.

LOL AMD NO INNOVATIONS ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! what do you think, they stole their FPU from intel? LOL! NEVER!!!!!! Why the hell would they take something of intels which sucks and use it for their products? They actually want to make good products and not just go on an advertising spree to make money. What does intel make?! wates of silicon that they claim is awsome but actually is equal to crap.

-----------------
"648kb is all the space anyone would ever need!"

Bill Gates, 1980s
March 1, 2001 4:38:39 PM

Expect to see future processors released like the P4.

Remember the P3 @ 1.13, remember they shipped few parts to select crowd, problem was found and units never shipped in full volume. well...

It would have been stupid to do a .13 micron release and not tested the CPU and had developers making apps, drivers and adjustments to applications before its release.

I guess none of you idiots cannot realize that doing a "pre release" to work out bugs is a option.

But then again, your an idiot and its the best you can come up with.

I like the "software simulation" that AMD is doing. thats much more realistic.. AHAHAHAHAHAHA

WTG AMD. let alone AMD did not write the simulator.

AMD has no innovations Grzely1, AMD has survived off prodcting a less than 100% compatable CPU. AMD cannot claim 100% compatable, GG

stole the FPU from Alpha??
March 1, 2001 5:32:32 PM

Pre-release? What other products did Intel pre-release? The 810? The 820? Nonsense. Intel reacted to AMD and simply pushed the P3 beyond its limits. If not for Tom's Hardware finding the problem, Intel would have been embarrassed further as they would have ramped up production.

AMD's marketshare with the home hobbyist is on the rise. How could this be so if their products are not compatible?

FUGGER, calm down. Your posts still sound like a child having a tantrum.

By the way, your statement "your an idiot" should be "you're" or "you are". Don't call people names until you take a close look in the mirror.

Are FUGGER and AMDMELTDOWN the same person? Sounds like it from the tone of their tantrums.
March 1, 2001 6:03:09 PM

Thanks mavis beacon (jlbigguy) for the lesson in spelling. maybe you should filter all the threads and fix spelling as a full time job since you do it so well. most people would never been able to understand that without you correcting me. Thanks again and please keep up the spelling checks on a hourly basis.

I am calm. maybe you get a little worked up reading. heh. more like you whine like a baby.

Pre-release might not be the right way to put it.
Intel got the chips into developers hands before releasing a huge change in the architecture. I hope you can understand that and not try to compare it with anything else like the i820 or your dog spot.

WE ALL KNOW the P4 is about to change die size, pin count, FPU, cache, and more. no secret there (at least you can test apps and program on it NOW) unlike the software simulated hammer, AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

AMD is not 100% compatable. is that hard to understand. AMD cannot put 100% compatable on anything due to the fact that its not and never will be.

its not just me saying that, its a fact.

I can use your, cuz, prob, mobo, aint, yall, or whatever slang I want. Im 100% positive you understand me.
March 1, 2001 6:44:24 PM

I'm not even going to dignify the posts of certain immature people by replying to them. Obviously they have absolutely no ability to hold an intellectual conversation. So they shall be promptly ignored.

I would like to say that AMD has had absolutely no innovative original concepts in their designs, EVER.

The AMD chips running at a double-pumped bus? DDR SDRAM / RDRAM had it first.

The AMD chips using their superior FPU... What do you think the point of the Alpha chips were?

I could go on about their theoretical multi-chip system communications methods, but those aren't new either.

Then there is their specialized chip programming language to speed up applications that use it ... nope, not original either.

What does AMD have that hadn't been done or proposed by someone else before them? Really, I'd like to know. Go ahead anyone and list as many as possible.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not making fun of AMD. They've managed to take other people's ideas and implement them to make a pretty darn good chip. But all that proves is that they can take something that someone else did and improve on it.

People praise AMD for making a chip better than the P3. Well look at how much later the Athlons came out. It'd have taken a complete loser of a company to NOT make a chip better than the P3. People would have laughed at them for decades if that had. After all, look at Cyrix.

Making a new product that is better than an old product isn't anything to praise. It's just common sense, and to do anything less is to deserve judgement. I judge Intel for their Willamette. It deserves some negative comments. But at the same time, it at least had a lot of innovation, so it doesn't deserve only harsh criticism, because it does have a lot of interesting points to it that will benefit future chips.

Meanwhile, what does AMD give us that is innovative and original?

- Sanity is purely based on point-of-view.
March 1, 2001 6:51:59 PM

Heh, actually he said 1.4 mhz. You said 1.4 MHz. A 1.4 MHz processor would kill a 1.4 mhz processor any day.

M = Mega = 1 000 000
m = milli = 1/1000

A 5 year old with a pen an paper would work faster than a 1.4 mhz cpu. lol.

Why do I even try?
March 1, 2001 7:12:49 PM

the only reason Amd got the Alpha technology is because the FTC handed it to them, I'm 100% certain that DEC would've not wanted that!

"Amd cpu...Gone in -60 secs!"
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 1, 2001 8:21:10 PM

AMDMeltdown, you flaming idiot. Aside from running x86 code, the K6 was no Intel knockoff. I don't recall Intel implementing RISC86 in any of their processors. The K6 came from Nexgen, and was an orginal design. The K7 is basically a K6 on steroids, again, having little in common with Intel chips aside from running x86 code. And what the hell is this crap about the FTC handing the Alpha to AMD? Pull your head out, boy, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Do you Intel droids know the deffinition of innovation? AMD has outpatented Intel by hundreds of patents the last two years. Shall I point out some particular, very innovative patents that will be finding their way into upcoming products? All of this coming from a company with a fraction of the R&D spending of Intel. Hmmm, where are all those Intel R&D billions going?

Intelmeltdown, how about sharing the particulars of the Alpha technology that got handed to AMD. AMD licensed the EV6 bus from Compaq, and the Athlons lead designer, Dirk Meyer, was part of the Alpha team. Nothing got handed to AMD. And, aside from the FPU of the Athlon being a strong performer, it bares little resemblence to the FPU in the Alpha.

Lets talk about the P6 architecture and how Intel stole the design from the Russians. Or we can also talk about the Motorola engineers that Intel hijacked from Mot.

Lets talk about EPIC, the Itanic, and how HP handed the technology, as crappy as it is, to Intel. Apparently Intel can't design a new architecture. They tried back in 1989 and, well, it didn't succeed. Do you even know what I'm refering to?

Lets talk about P4, and how Intel marketing is going to ensure that all the bozos of this world will buy it, with help from idiots like you, because of it's high clock speed. And don't even get me started on RAMBUST!

"Intel Inside, Idiot Outside"
March 1, 2001 9:28:09 PM

Hey AMD stole intel x86 design. LOL im funny

:cool: First person to get a topic banned. :cool: ABIT BP6 Lives FOREVER!!! :cool: VIA SUCKS !!! :cool:
March 1, 2001 10:04:35 PM

>The K6 came from Nexgen,

wow, a knock off from a knock off!

>AMD has outpatented Intel by hundreds of patents the last two years.

show me the numbers, 'cause here are mine!!!

<A HREF="http://techlawjournal.com/atr/80427intc.htm" target="_new">Amd's little handme down</A>

<A HREF="http://techlawjournal.com/agencies/ftc-intc/80427agr.ht..." target="_new">The Court Order</A>

read 'em and weep!

you can talk all you want about Intel this Intel that, I know everything Intel does! I visit <A HREF="http://www.faceintel.com" target="_new">Face Intel</A>.

Intel is always trying new tech with willing partners, not handme downs by the courts.

Also everyone has stolen something from the Russians, look at NASA!!! (but then again the Russians stole from the aliens or was it the US?)



"Amd cpu...Gone in -60 secs!"
March 2, 2001 3:03:53 AM

This is the most interesting thread....people are really struting their stuff. Might as well be a cock fight.

I'm not going to get into who stole from who since we all know that espionage is a large part of the computer business. We can go back to the begining or xerox or whatever, and it's all espionage and thievery.

What interests me though is the release of products so early just to get the name out. Obviously we're talking about the 1.13Ghz, but the new P4 is a processor cut off at the ancles. And then of course we have VIA... And now I worry about getting a good DDR motherboard. Sure the innovation and competition is making everyone run for their money, but to what cost? The public is taking a beating with really bad products that should be awesome. I only hope that the next generation of processors will hit the market fully functional. At least with VIA, a bios update can fix the problem, but this new P4 really shouldn't be on the shelves. Why sell a product that is really only half of what it should be?

It's all about marketing. Every other commercial is the blue man team telling us what to buy...

"I think I brained my damage"
March 2, 2001 11:29:01 AM

Still ranting....

But at least we have a new term to use:

Fabricated Fugger Facts (or FFF for short).

Here are your words:

"AMD is not 100% compatable. is that hard to understand. AMD cannot put 100% compatable on anything due to the fact that its not and never will be.

its not just me saying that, its a fact."

Another fact from the heart, not from logic, not from any article, from your mouth to Gods. Fabricated Fugger Facts. I love it!

As far as AMD being a copy of Intel, so what? Knock offs always improve upon the original, either by being better or by causing the competition to improve. We would not have the chips today from Intel if not for AMD.

Ford was the originator of the modern car. Chevy, Olds, Pontiac, Toyota, and all other brands of cars are copies. Do we only buy Fords? Of course not. Some of the copies are better then Fords, some are not. Why are there different brands of major products (television, radio, CD players and so on)? Someone took someones elses idea and improved upon it. Computers are not different. As for Intel being the originator, they copied a simple idea and improved upon it as well. The mechanical adding machine. The first CPU chips were not much more then glorified adding machines (faster of course then the mechanical ones), and have evolved into the modern CPU chips of today, which are still not much more then very fast programmable adding machines.
March 2, 2001 12:43:43 PM

Hey, I have no problems with clones. Heck, I used to own a Tandy. :) 

And I don't even have a problem with AMD. I like them ... at least I will if they put thermal protection into their CPUs. I used to have a lot more complaints against AMD, but they're FINALLY doing things right. (Like making their own chipsets again, and like supposedly working on making multiple AMD chip systems a reality.)

Compared to the P3, AMD makes faster chips with better FPUs.

But I look towards the future more than I look at the present. And that's one area where AMD just doesn't impress me. They only copy other people. They don't work with other people to expand the possabilities of a computer. They just fight against Intel to make the faster chip. While that's nice because it lowers prices, it's useless for any future PCs.

Meanwhile Intel works with other companies and experiments with technologies. Sometimes their experiements aren't successful in themselves. But each time they try, they always come away with something that is usable out of their efforts that can be used in future PCs.

Intel drives the future. AMD drives the present. It's really that simple.

And for anyone who thinks that patents in-and-of-themselves are a measurement of innovation, think again. You can't patent a concept, only the means of achiving that concept. Say I want a blue dot on my screen. I can't patent putting blue dots on a screen. I can only patent my METHOD of putting that blue dot on a screen. But there are nearly an infinite number of methods that can be used to achive any end. So patents don't prove that someone is doing anything original. More often than anything else, they only prove that someone is finding new means to accomplish the same thing that someone else has already accomplished.

What shows innovation is when you come out with something that no one else has come out with yet. AMD has yet to do anything innovative. All that they have done is take other people's innovations and put them together in a nice package.

Which indeed makes AMD chips good products.

But it won't be AMD that solves any problems or paves the way into the future with new concepts. If you want those new concepts, you have to go with someone else. If you want to wait to use old concepts that have been improved upon, then AMD is your company.

Both ways have their advantages. As going with either AMD or Intel has it's own set of advantages ... and disadvantages. I just find Intel to be a lot more interesting and know that their products will be the first to use new concepts.

To me, it's worth the price to have the most interesting product. To others, it may not be worth the price. Such are the joys of individuality.

- Sanity is purely based on point-of-view.
March 2, 2001 12:48:50 PM

Dude, before you make statements like that one about AMD's simulator, maybe read up on processor design and arquitecture a bit, you'll see what I'm talking about.
It's a necesity man, everyone has to do it, even Intel, DEC, MIPS, Motorola, IBM, you name it, they make a simulator before they actually even produce the processor, or even make a prototype.
I will agree though on one thing, I don't understand why the hell they don't make their own simulator. They designed the processor, they should know enough about it to make a simulator, but I guess software is most definitely not their strong point...and don't get me started on them not making a compiler, that just really pisses me off.
March 2, 2001 12:57:20 PM

Very well said, and I agree. However..

"Intel drives the future. AMD drives the present. It's really that simple."

I hope that this statement does not turn out to be true. When one company leads into the future, the future is defined by that company alone. This results in "tunnel vision", which does not necessarily result in the best product for the consumer. The best future is defined by multiple companies competing for the market, resulting in innovation as each tries to out do the other. To drive the future, Intel needs competition. Not only from AMD. I hope the Samuel II from VIA turns out to be a better chip then expected. It would help to shape that future.
March 2, 2001 2:11:01 PM

Is the hammer series also supposed to be a clone?

"There is no time like the present"
March 2, 2001 2:21:12 PM

Oh, I agree. I'd prefer it not to be true. But at least for the present it is.

AMD just isn't driving the future of technology.

Intel is. But it's not always Intel alone. A lot of times they work with other companies to perfect an idea or technology. So it's not just one company alone driving the future. It's just driven mostly under the name Intel.

And I have absolutely no expectations from VIA. They've thoroughly proven that they don't even belong in the hardware business. They make horrible bugs, blame it on other companies and other products, and then quietly fix them, hoping that no one notices that it was their fault after all. And they take years to finally produce mature products.

I definately won't count on VIA for squat.

I would however like to see mayne NVIDIA join the fray or even merge with AMD. NVIDIA at least knows how to do R&D and drive the future of things. They should make CPUs, or at least motherboards and mobo chipsets. Then we'd see a world of change in PCs. And all for the better. :) 

- Sanity is purely based on point-of-view.
March 2, 2001 4:19:40 PM

I have a little trouble with this statement...

Quote:
Intel drives the future. AMD drives the present. It's really that simple.


What does that mean? Without getting too metaphysical, if Intel "drove the future" in the past but AMD drives the present, then I am quite fine w/ Intel acting as AMD's R&D arm. I don't give a rats ass who thought of something, I care about who implemented it best. Kind of along the car lines: Ford may have been the thinkers behind the modern auto but I would much rather own a BMW, Audi, or Toyota because they are much better. (The difference btwn the two analogies is that what is better is actually cheaper when it comes to chips.)

I find it ironic that people would side w/ Intel simply because they thought of some idea (or influenced the market a la SSE) rather than who does a better job of implementing. If AMD can copy from now until eternity but do it better, faster, and cheaper then Intel will be in serious trouble.

-------------------------------------
Nature abhors a moron. -- HL Mencken
March 2, 2001 5:06:24 PM

Intel makes back-room agreements and abuses its market leadership to force it on the consumer. How is this a good thing? And what's this crap about AMD not working with other companies? Do their chipsets just appear in a puff of smoke? Has their work with Tramseta been a media hoax?

Name one truely "new" invention from Intel. The IC? Nope, sorry. The "computer" then! Oh wait, nope, they didn't quite get there first. Fabrication processes? Eep, not that either. So what is this completely new innovation that came from the labs of Intel? I'd really like to know. Everything in the computing industry today is merely an improvment on previous designs.

As far as the future is concerned, I find the AMD Hammer MUCH more interesting than anything coming from Intel. It has had dual-CPU emulation since the beginning, which is why it will perform well in 32bit applications. It has expanded on what it has learned from its double-pumped Athlon FSB, which was in the market long before Intel produced its quad pumped P4. It also looks like it will be delivered, unlike the last score of Intel products. Intel has a pretty big lead in both time and money on 64bit processors, but their first attempt was a complete failure. They are now working on someone else's design to get a working product to market.

/Athlon-1.2GHz@1370MHz(137MHz*10)/Asus_A7V133/
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 2, 2001 5:58:36 PM

Here's my analysis of a recent conversation I had at a show.

Intel Rep: Look, here's a Pentium 4 with NetBurst.
Intel Rep: ...and a 400MHz processor bus.
Me: No, actually 100 Quad Pumped. BTW, that's only a third faster than 266.
Intel Rep: Oh, they didn't tell me that.
Me: No, they didn't tell the chip designers either.
Intel Rep: But it has a superior archatecture!
Me: Superior to what? The Empire State? The C64?
Intel Rep: No, superior to our previous chips.
Me: So it's pretty lame then.
Intel Rep: It comes with RAMBUS!
Me: Yeah that's what I said, it's pretty lame.

... and so on.

Oh yeah:
Quote:
No one knows the difference between your and you're


"Look they're!, there dog is on you're lawn again, its messing up the flowers over their. Are roses our being damaged. Lets call a exterminator."

Please obey the rules of grammer. They're there for a reason. Where I come from we understand our own language.

(\/ additional signature added for posterity \/)

~ Please leave your Celerons at the door, this is an Intel free building. ~


~ I'm not AMD biased, I just think their chips are better ~
March 2, 2001 6:04:28 PM

tfbww, I don't argue with the concept. That's why if I had to build a system right this second, I'd use an AMD chip.

But here are the differences:
AMD won't come out with anything that can properly compete against the P4 until the Northwood has been out for a while. (And possibly AMD will never compete with it.)

And, if Intel were to cease to exist, AMD would no longer have anything to do but further improve on their own designs. I'd doubt that they would ever do anything original ... at least not for a few years.

----------

Sojourn, you're so anti-Intel, it's funny. You don't think AMD doens't try to force things on consumers? What about their "Hyper Transport" bus to replace PCI? Hmm? Just because it might be usefull it's okay to force it then? Your logic is flawed.

Face it. The goal of any company is to make money. AMD and Intel are both blatantly guilty of it. And there is NOTHING wrong with that, at least to me, because that's the only point of a business in the first place.

The 'back-room agreements' that Intel has done were for Intel's benefit. And when Intel benefits, we benefit. We may not have appreciated how they practically forced RDRAM on their P3 users. But then they DID offer SDRAM support. AND, I might add, AMD didn't offer DDR SDRAM support for the longest time either and they didn't even give their users the benefit of their own AMD chipset. Instead they forced their customers to use the faulty VIA chipsets. Yeah, I love AMD for that. Ha.

And now, Intel IS trying to convince other chipset makers to support Intel CPUs with DDR SDRAM because they know that their hands are tied to Rambus and they WANT the consumers to have DDR SDRAM. And you can't deny that the P4 architecture definately benefits from RDRAM more than it would from DDR SDRAM. Unless, of course, the DDR SDRAM happens to be the exact same FSB frequency as the CPU.

Yes, AMD works with other companies. But unlike Intel, they do it because they lack the competancy to do the work themselves. Where as Intel does it to expand the future of computers and give other companies credit where it is due instead of just stealing it from them.

And Intel HAS come up with several improvements implemented into the P4. Their branch prediction methods are completely new. The longer pipeline is something most people call crazy, yet it serves a purpose. SSE2 is, of course, useful. The P4 utilizes memory bandwidth a lot more efficiently than any previous chip. Need I go on?

Personally, I find the AMD Hammer a little scary. It reminds me a LOT of Sega. Remember way back in the days when Sega had their little 8-bit system, just like Nintendo had? Nintendo came out with a true 16-bit system, the SNES. Meanwhile Sega just strapped two 8-bit processors together for their Genesis and called it a 16-bit system. Then they went so far as to strap four 8-bit processors together for their 32X. And everyone laughed at Sega because they were being stupid. The Genesis wasn't a TRUE 16-bit system. The 32X wasn't a TRUE 32-bit system. Sega became the laughing-stock of the console business. Their consoles could run 8-bit code extremely fast, but they their 16-bit and 32-bit performance was horrible.

AMD's Hammers are sounding a lot like that. And if they are, then AMD is about to become the laughing-stock of the PC business. For everyone's sake I really hope that AMD's Hammer chips are true 64-bit chips. Otherwise they'll suck compared to a true 64-bit chip.

I like AMD. I just want them to become more than they are. And until they do, Intel seems the smarter bet for the future of PCs.

But for a current system, I'll go with AMD. ... Until Northwood comes out.

- Sanity is purely based on point-of-view.
March 2, 2001 6:09:18 PM

Intel works on future technologies

AMD works on todays technology making it better.

Hammer line is rumored to be SMP on a chip 2x 32 bit.
http://www.amd.com/products/cpg/64bit/pdf/x86-64_overvi...

Notice how all software has to be recompiled, notice 32 bit operand ONLY, notice 32bit Dword.

Read more on compatability mode vs legacy mode. calling it compatability mode sure makes me feel warm and secure about software I might want to run on it. maybe the recompile is giving me mixed feelings. or is it the SMP on a chip 2x 32bit != 64bit. zero extending 32 bit address code to run in compatability mode 64bit...

Sure todays SMP machines run x86 software better than non SMP machines, duh.

Alot in that AMD .pdf file not spelled out for you guys to completely understand. I like the use of "compatability mode" as in 64 bit compatable. woohoo

Why didnt they make a true 64 bit chip. instead of making x86-64 hybrid? SMP works and I give credit to AMD for coining the term double pumped to fool market into thinking true FSB Mhz was actually 200Mhz when it was 100Mhz.

Sojourn, SSE2, now STFU. thanks. try visiting www.intel.com and notice hundreds of products they make. GG
March 2, 2001 6:30:46 PM

Doesn't it just scare you to think that the Hammer might be a dual 32-bit system instead of a true 64-bit system? God, how much that would suck for running 64-bit software... Hell, if I want to 32-bit processors, I'll buy two 32-bit processors. Heh heh heh.

If this turns out to be true, I'll be laughing at AMD for years and years to come. I might even have to be sedated just to stop laughing. :) 

- Sanity is purely based on point-of-view.
March 2, 2001 7:47:44 PM

Well, Sega sold GOBS of Genesis consoles (I've owned 2 myself having just bought a used one for $10). I don't think they were much of a laughing stock so much as an ENORMOUS threat to Nintendo. In fact, Genesis is one of the best consoles ever (as compared to its competition). The 32x WAS a joke though.

Your argument that AMD can't compete w/ the "P4 until the Northwood has been out for a while" is kind of misleading. First of all, AMD kix the P4's butt right now (except for my gripe session in another thread). Second, the P4 will only *become* competitive once the Northwoods come out. Given my most recent AMD experience and similar problems from Intel w/ the P3, I don't "believe in" a processor until its been in consumers hands for a couple months. So, first, Intel must regain its competitiveness in order for AMD to have to be challenged to then catch up (as my old Lotus 123 would put it: Circ Ref Err).

Your last point to me is also a non-sequitor. Intel is not going out of business anytime remotely soon. If that were something to seriously consider, then MAYBE I'd be worried. Even then, however, AMD could simply hire the Intel engrs.

-------------------------------------
Nature abhors a moron. -- HL Mencken
March 2, 2001 10:55:28 PM

HolyGrenade,

There is no telling what Hammer will be until it is released and tested. I personally hope it will be all AMD says and more (only because I just bought AMD stock while it is low). However, for all of the hype of speed and new features of "Willamette", the P4 resulted. Not quite what the last 2 years of speculation was about. The promise of high clock speed was achieved, but not performance.

Now others will argue that when the new optimized software for the P4 comes out, the P4 will scream. That may be, but by the time that comes about, we will all be upgrading to then next generation of chips. How many of us (hobbyists) keep a cpu for more then 2 years?

Thanks to the competition from AMD, we can afford to upgrade our systems frequently. How many of us could really afford to buy a new Intel cpu on a yearly basis 4 years ago? Whether you like AMD or Intel, you have to admit that the competition between them is the best thing to happen to the consumer.
March 2, 2001 10:59:59 PM

The next generation (Hammer?) of AMD chips is supposed to have the same level of thermal protection as Intel chips.

What will the "others" complain about then? All that will be left is VIA, which they should be complaining about now!
March 2, 2001 11:10:28 PM

Verteron,

"Look they're!, there dog is on you're lawn again, its messing up the flowers over their. Are roses our being damaged. Lets call a exterminator."

Great Stuff!

Unfortunately, here in the United States, one can graduate High School without acquiring any knowledge at all. We take our problem students and push them through graduation so we don't have to deal with them. A pity, as you can see by the evidence.
March 3, 2001 12:57:47 AM

Are you sure with your Genesis analogy? Cuz, I think you are wrong. I mean, AMD Hammer will be able to process 64 bit code. Now, did Genesis actually process 16 bit code, or was it just a dual 8-bit system (like a dual Pentium) that processed 8-bit much faster, but only called 16-bit for advertising sake? It is true though, that Genesis was an awesome system for its time, and I think much better than Super NES (besides Nintendoes 256 color and Genesis stuck with crap 64 colors). If that were the case with Genesis, in terms of what code it processed, the Clawhammer really can't be compared with it. I'm not scared at all, because I won't be using a 64 bit system when it comes out. I only care about 32 bit performance, which should rock. Anyways, the Hammer and Clawhammer are different chips. The clawhammer is basically 2 hammer chips on the same die working as the same. To me, that seems much different than what Sega did with genesis.

All you people getting your panties in a bunch over this are pretty silly. I think AMD processers are better because of their price/performance ratio. It just totally blows Intel away. You're talking about AMD not having any innovations... What about 3DNOW!? I'm not an expert but isn't that an AMD specific feature? Also, what about their new Lightning Data Transfer thing... They are working with Transmeta with that, but they came up with it. Seems like a good, unique innovation to me from what I've read about it.

The fact remains that Athlons are better processers than Pentium III, and even the current Pentium 4. You know an Athlon 1.5 gHz will smack around a P4 1.5 gHz. Now, the one person said you can't give credit to AMD for making Athlons better than PIII because they came out later. Now, Intel came out with P4 MUCH later than Athlon, and it is a far inferior product than what AMD has to offer. The next generation P4 isn't that much better than the current ones, correct? Now, when the .13 micron Athlons come out (Thouroughbred and Appalossa), they will also probably kick the crap out of Northwood P4, especially with DDR solutions coming out. No reason why they shouldn't, as they will have SSE2 support as well as other improvements.

Intel also is very good. But, you have to realize that Intel is the 800 lb gorilla in the industry, and AMD doesn't have the billions upon billions of dollars in R&D funds that Intel has to create such different processers like the P4. I damn well bet that if AMD had the R&D budget as Intel, AMD would be even more superior than Intel.

I think Intel has done some pretty crappy things in the past, both intentional and non intentional. The 820 debacle, the OG pentium (had that bug that caused incorrect computations of large numbers or something), 1.13 PIII, P4 in general, RDRAM is all pretty sad. I don't see AMD doing this sort of thing. Of course the 760 chipset isn't what it was hyped up to be, but it's just delayed and not really faulty like Intels.

The only beef I have with AMD is their lack of chipsets. I mean, Intel has over 10 to choose from (including third party solutions), which AMD pretty much only has 3 or 4 right now (VIA KT133(A), 750, SiS 730). But, that will all change and is changing with their current efforts.

So, I say don't resort to childish name calling and boo-hooin, so be civilized, please.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 3, 2001 8:27:27 AM

Quote:

Sega just strapped two 8-bit processors together for their Genesis and called it a 16-bit system... AMD's Hammers are sounding a lot like that.


What the heck are you talking about? AMD Hammer will be two chips in one package (the SledgeHammer anyway, but not the ClawHammer I believe), but one chip will be 64-bit and one 32-bit. So by your logic, AMD will produce a 96-bit chip.

Obviously (and I'm talking to you all, not just to slvr_phoenix) you people have read nothing about the new AMD chips, and the fact that AMD will be the manufacturer to push 64-bit and x86-64 in the consumer market, not the server market, while maintaining faster-than-athlon 32-bit performance. What could be better?

I'd like to see the Itanium Emulator running 32-bit code at any speed. The latest CERN benchmarks (that's the European particle lab which invented the world wide web for you Americans) show that the first 733MHz Itanium is much slower than a 800MHz PIII Xeon, on code performing the same task but specifically compiled for the two archatectures (so no emulation or code morphing involved). Yes I know they can address huge amounts of memory, but with performance like that, coupled with the expected cost, who will care? (I should know, my company runs web servers...)

In addition, everyone thinks that the G4 is 128-bit. Nope. It's a 32-bit chip with a '128-bit rapid execution engine' which requires some compiled code support. Now everybody knows that the G4 is faster than any Intel chip at a similar clock speed, so the Hammer looks very promising indeed... Certainly sounds like innovation on AMD's part (according to most of you they have none).

Sure, the P4 may be a faster chip, but once the 760MP arrives, I can probably buy two AMD chips for the price of your P4. The P4 seems to shine in encoding, etc, which are all helped by two processors. I'd like to see your P4 1.5GHz beat two Athlons at 1.0GHz in any task like this.

I am not anti-Intel. I am not AMD-biased. I buy whatever provides the best performance/price combination. At the moment, this is (by far) AMD. But believe me, I'd have no loyalty if Intel chopped their prices to below the AMD levels.

~ I'm not AMD biased, I just think their chips are better. ~
March 3, 2001 2:19:23 PM

Actually, the 64-bit AMD Clawhammer is two 32 bit Hammers on the same die that work as one chip (so totally different than 2 pentiums in an SMP system). The problem I see with pushing a 64 bit system to the consumer market is that consumer markets are currently 32 bit only, and will probably remain that way for quite some time. But who knows, maybe in 2002 wieh Hammers come out things will be different. I don't bet on it though. I think the Clawhammers are for server markets, but they can also work in consumer 32 bit systems and perform those tasks extermely well, effectively turning the 64-bit server chip into a dual 32-bit consumer chip...
March 3, 2001 3:12:01 PM

Sadly enough, you've failed to notice that Face Intel is <i>against</i> Intel. LOL

-----------------
"648kb is all the space anyone would ever need!"

Bill Gates, 1980s
March 3, 2001 5:21:51 PM

Sadly enough, you've failed to notice that <b>I DID NOTICE!</b> that Face Intel <b>IS</b> <i>against</i> Intel. LOL!


oh, griz you're a dope!

"Amd cpu...Gone in -60 secs!"
March 3, 2001 8:13:34 PM

Quote:

you can talk all you want about Intel this Intel that, I know everything Intel does! I visit Face Intel.

Sure sounds otherwise. :wink:

-----------------
"648kb is all the space anyone would ever need!"

Bill Gates, 1980s
!