AMD vs. Intel: Refuting Historical Inaccuracies - Page 4

Confident I am wrong on what front exactly? PS, most of what I posted was not opinion but rather the result of empirical evidence.

You were the one making outlandish claims about people's IQ ratings and trying to pass it off as fact. I simply related to you my experience of who the average PC consumer is. It is based on not only my first hand experience but that of the several large IT Corporations I've worked for (This includes ATi and Dell).

The average PC customer is a Dell/HP/Acer customer.. not the build it yourself customer.

But what if you want the best performance and price isn't an issue? Would you not get the best PC which just happens to be the most expensive?


We're not disagreeing with you that for most people the $1000 CPU is a waste of money, but for some people money is meant to be wasted! Saying that anyone who spends money on a $1000 is "stupid" etc... is just taking your broad brush of logic and applying it to everyone regardless of their situation.

All right.. fair enough. Let's see what you got

Most of what Cryslayer80 was writing was sarcastic and downright offensive. None of his posts contained an ounce of evidence. They were simply knee jerk reactionary posts derived from the "gut" (kinda like how Shawn Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck act) rather than being backed by empirical evidence.

Now what you're attempting to do here, as you're faced with mountains of empirical evidence, is "spin". Essentially you want to take the focus away from the evidence and back onto the claims. It's a noble yet futile effort.

The Thread addressed Positive Claims made by some AMD fanbois. Those claims included such things as "AMD is the most innovative they came up with the idea for an IMC" as well as many others.

AMD did not "think up" an Integrated Memory Controller first. Even when you get passed that (showing Alpha and prior CPUs making use of an IMC) they hit you with the first x86 processor to get an IMC. What I showed is that even this claim is false.

So the claim is false and you're attempting to spin it with this statement:

There was never a mention of Intel "Not liking the idea of an IMC" or that "Intel wasn't ready for that technology". You pulled these statements out of thin air. They're not factual but rather opinion (assumptions you're making).

You end it with:

No.. the bottom line is that Intel had previously developed these technologies therefore AMD was in no way "Innovating" something brand new and never before seen.

The evidence and the facts presented in this thread (for the subject for this thread) were presented by yours truly. You, coming out of nowhere, and attempting to spin evidence you had no idea existed before would be tantamount to commiting intellectual suicide on your part. I have done the research behind these facts (I know how they each claim relates to the other).. therefore you, who just happened to walk by and glance over at the evidence I've presented, have no credibility whatsoever on the topic at hand until you yourself do the research. Your attempt at spinning the facts is what is most worthy of a good laugh.

I am an AMD fan and I don't see why they get so damn defensive about AMD, as soon as Intel becomes Underdog they turn around and say intel did actually come up with xxxx but AMD now made it better, where as right now they say AMD came up with xxxx

I don't disagree with this, implementing a technology worldwide is innovative and a good accomplishment.
But that's not how it's said to others, it's usually 'AMD did it first'. It's nice to learn the history behind things like this.

I'd also say an on-die PCI-E controller is innovative too, but I guess that's considered Intel fanboy-ism?

I'd be just as happy to see one regarding any other company, including Intel.

Why don't you respond to my post in the other thread elmo? I really want to continue with that but you seem to be avoiding it somewhat.

why would you want that???? Harder to upgrade and less customizable....

oh okay I see now. Okay good because how i initially interpreted it i was thinking "Now what's this guy doing on a HW enthusiast forum..."

Asking Elmo to "drop it" is a fool's errand.

Why are you posting in a "serious thread" if you have nothing "serious" to say?

Using the same logic, Intel should be given the credit for the innovation of native quad core, since the original Phenom / Opteron was a failure. Would you admit that? Of course not, because admitting that would be shooting yourself in the foot with your "AMD was the first to native quad core design".

So we have two options here:

1. Admitting that the original developer to be the most innovative. However that won't work, because that will exclude AMD out of a lot of technologies that was considered to be "innovative and forefront" by many AMD fan(boy/girl).

2. Admitting that whoever implemented the technology is actually more innovative. However, that won't work as well, because like I pointed out, AMD will also be pried away from a lot of "firsts".

So which is it? Option 1 or 2?

Actually, I think an Option 3 may be more fitting.

3. Admitting that AMD is the forefront of every technology, by combining the first two options, and use them interchangeably. AMD was the first to use HTT, despite the fact that DEC Alpha was the first to develop and implement it. AMD was the first to real quad core, even though Intel's own rendition is much more powerful and sensible than AMD's. AMD was the first to develop the IMC, despite that Intel already included that in the i386/i486. AMD will also be the first to Fusion, despite that Intel's own CPU/GPU integration will be launched for mass market in Q1 of 10.

The only contribution that AMD gave to the tech industry is the x86_64 extension. While it is very significant, some do put way too much credit into AMD.

Funny that you put it that way, because if I remember correctly, AMDzone actually banned him and his thread before he even had time to explain his points. Quite ironic.

Why are intel wasting time on larrabee anyway? Has anybody actually sat down and asked why intel are doing this instead of just doing what AMD are doing instead?

Why do intel need gpgpu when they already have cpu's and gpu's (kind of). Sometimes I wonder if nvidia spooked intel or it was the other way around.

Sums it up well.

I really don't know. It struck me as odd, but they're researching and developing other things as well.
So I'm just going to see what becomes of it. I guess with the profit they've been making, they've been able to span out. The improvement on their new IGP is quite impressive from the engineering sample benches I've seen, gone from crippled 3D performance right up to comparable with the 785G. While the ATi is ahead, that's still a huge improvement over the GM4500. So who knows, maybe they learned how to draw pictures?

In other news, co-workers laptop died today, turns out it has the famous nVidia G84 graphics chip, also with my dead nForce IGP at home... reputation pretty much out the window with nVidia IGP for me.

ATi's still seem to be the best for IGP (and I'd expect it to be this way for a while yet).
Although I'm totally unaware of why we're discussing IGP again.

The original "native" AMD quad core design was not a failure as you are so quick to advocate in your post. It might not have been as successful as the company would have hoped but it was far from a failure. In truth AMD released a native quad core that was generally fairly close to the speed of the older Intel chips when compared clock per clock. That is actually pretty good engineering considering they released a brand new architecture to compete with an older architecture that had been through several steppings.

But of course you and your ilk don't like somebody pointing that out since it ruins your main point and makes the rest of your post useless. But that's okay because anyone that would accept your logic without considering the facts would not be extremely intelligent. (As the original poster has attempted to mention. Of course he probably didn't want his own logic used against him but oh well.) You and other "unbiased" posters might want to pretend that you live in a different reality because you are ego involved, but that doesn't actually change the truth.

AND: what really gets you guys angry is that many people won't blindly share your opinions. That really makes you crazy. You can't and won't concede that people analyze benchmarks and can come up with completely different conclusions; what some people call "destroying", "smoking", "pwning", etc. is viewed by many people as actually being basically the same result. But you don't see it that way and so you must attempt to force your opinion on everyone else. Therefore you and your horde of "unbiased" posters attempt to deride and ridicule anyone that doesn't join your club and completely agree with your opinions. It's actually pretty sad. But it does provide hours of enjoyment wondering what kind of tripe you guys are going to come up with next.

What exactly do you mean...fairly close?

I think you just summed up quite nicely why people with logic sense don't post in AMDzone regularly anymore.

Probably also a self-pride kind of thing. Also architecture wise, they'd probably fall near into the design of nvidia or ati, which would probably require licensing which means more money comes out. With a self-made architecture, they could take any direction they want and they'd also probably own the patents.

It is quite impossible for intel to acquire nvidia at any point because 2 big egos really don't work well together.

You are correct that someone else said it first. I didn't catch that, as I don't always have time to read every word. As such, my apologies to Cryslayer80.

You can't say much about ganging up on people since you guys do the same thing at AMDZone, the only difference is that at AMDZone the dissenting opinion gets banned, while at Tom's you're allowed to disagree and speak your opinion (thank you moderators).

Okay... INTEL FTW! TOM'S FTW. AMD DOOOWN... Sorry, had to That is my last un-serious post

We weren't doing that though.

In many of my posts I acknowledge that for many people AMD would be a great choice because people don't typically spend +$250 USD on a processor.

The main hang-up that I think we had is that you're of the mindframe that buying as $1,000 is always foolish, and that I'm of the mindframe that there are some expections.

By the way, Intel's top end does have real-world benefits. Like you, I also thumb my nose to synthetic benchmarks.

I think one thing that might help you CrySlayer is to see that sometime we're not always completely disagreeing with you. In most of my posts in this thread I tried to disagree with you on one point, but show that I also agreed with you on another.


I think everyone involved (meaning more than just Cryslayer) could benefit from toning down the arguments a little bit. I don't think we go too far out of hand, but it did get a little "heated".

Well, as you can guess I've NEVER been to AMDZone, if they practice censorship over there, then they're doing themselves little good. My biggest problem with THIS forum has always been the "Hatfields' vs. McCoys" nature of the Intel vs. AMD threads. If you read my posting history you'll note that I never took part in it. The board was/is much better now than before but still, I don't look forward to going back to the days of flame and drain. I'd much prefer to discuss the merits and detriments of each company's offerings realizing that even if a chip isn't the fastest it might have some value in some segment of the market.

Da Worfster

I agree with you. We're not saying that Intel is the only choice because they're faster. We're saying two things:



A) Intel and AMD both have great offerings in the budget segment

and

B) AMD does NOT have any offerings in the high-end CPU segment, as their fastest CPU can't keep up with Intel's best.





On point A) we're agreeing with the AMD Fanboys. However, the fanboys just can't bring themselves to admit point B), that Intel has a top end market presence, and that AMD does not. Inteling having a top-end doesn't discredit AMD's products in the low end, but it does hurt AMD as a company not to be able to bring in the big bucks for their top binning parts, which sell for only ~$250.

Again, I must say I disagree. The first thing we disagree in is about market segments. I seriously believe $250 is not mainstream when the highest performing CPU is $280 (not counting I7 940+ of course). Second, I again say that I am confident that if AMD wanted to, they could release a $1000 CPU (but it is already late for that as AMD provided all the features Intel has in its $1000 CPUs in their $250 CPUs).

I wasnt refering to LRB, but your mention of Intels fusion, which isnt LRV, and youre right, its too early to pride up Intel on their early "fusion" and, if thats all they got, and no LRB, then theyll be in trouble. Got it now?
I agree, its still too early for LRB, but again, after it releases, itll be too late to say wait, it has to deliver

Actually it's usually a bit more complex than that. On that forum they generally are more strict on making you stick to the thread's topic than you guys are on this forum. Plus you can't look at one of the posts and conclude that all of the person's posts were acceptable.

I've been over there following a live thread and have seen posts disappear without the poster being banned and having seen said deleted post a few minuets prior I know that it just didn't fit in with the ANDzone collective opinion.