I have never used AMD, so I don't think I count as a traitor.
I love Core 2, though. The overclockability
Then you should get the Phenom 2. It over overclocked to a whopping 6.4 GHz!
But AMD kicked Intel's processor back in the AMD64 days, and I have always been an AMD fan, so I refuse to go with Core 2 Duo for desktop
And I don't like overclocking either >_<
The sheet amount of power it will consume makes me cry.
I like to underclock / undervolt my processor
Originally Posted by Adak
I think we had this discussion before. The only reason AMD was "so good" in the AMD64 days was because Intel was sucking so badly. The Pentium 4 and the Netburst architecture was a mess when it came to high-end computing and it made AMD look phenomenal in comparison. I honestly wouldn't be surpirsed if AMD never really catches up to Intel again. They are however going toe-to-toe with nVidia in the graphics department, though.
Sent from my iPadŽ
You mean to say, AMD sucks, Intel rules. AMD was just lucky back then.
And I completely disagree. AMD has always had better processors than Intel.
Recently, AMD slipped and fell behind schedule allowing Intel to make a comeback.
It is true that AMD was the underdog for a long time, even with the better processor, however.
But AMD is making a comeback. Phenom was a good processor that would probably beat Core 2 Duo on higher clocks speeds. Now, Phenom 2 is here with more improvements, and it's a battle again.
I didn't say AMD was lucky back then, I said Intel sucked back then for a period of time. Don't forget that what ever titles AMD held for 6 years or so, Intel held for nearly 20 years before that. Now since it's gotten back on it's feet, AMD has struggled to keep up almost reaching the point of bankruptcy at points. As for the Phenom II... while there is nothing official to say about it, the only unofficial benchmarks didn't really show it competing too well with the Core i7 in most titles. Yet it's still got another month or so before release. Whether it will compete or not can't be determined... but nothing I've seen has said it will.
Sent from my iPadŽ
Yeah, well, ever heard of Microsoft?
Somehow they stayed on top, even though their software & stuff might not have been the best. And why is that? Because of their business methods.
It's the same for Intel. They stayed on top because of their resources and business methods. There has even been reports that Intel tried to undercut AMD when AMD were on top by, for example, bribing computer manufacturers.
No, Intel's quality was not the best then, and they suffered from it.
That mentioned, AMD's quality was better, and thus they surpassed Intel.
Intel cut up from the slack and began to manufacture better processors to beat AMD, and so they tables turned around.
That is called history.
I still have hopes in AMD. They made the first native quad-core, after all. They made the first HyperTransport, after all.
And now Intel realizes that it's a good design and creates their own equivalent technology.
Actually, the reason Microsoft has maintained top spot was because the appealed to the consumer better than any of its competitors. Your average user really doesn't have too many complaints about Microsoft's products. I've demonstrated various Linux distributions to many, many people only to hear the extremely common response of "What's so special about this?" Surely, as a developer you can see that many of the things that make Linux appealing is not so appealing to the average person. ... and many of the things that are appealing to the average user in Linux, Microsoft is doing.
Plus, it's a snowball effect... you do something right and then you get backed by sponsors. People start developing software for you that the consumers want... and even if people don't like your operating system they deal with it for the software support. This is what Microsoft has... and to be frank, it's what they've been losing for the past year or two to Apple.
... and by the way, as far as I remember Intel has been cleared of all the Anti-trust allegations put on them. That's just something that comes with the territory of dominating a market.
Sent from my iPadŽ
Ever heard of all the illegal business practices Microsoft has used? I'm sure you have.
They undercut other competition to make themselves look on top. They bundle their operating system, their software, with new computers. Average users do not see anything else, so they grow up with it and recommend it to other and teach to others, and the cycle goes on.
The same is true for the Intel vs AMD war. Intel was on top because their brand was better than AMD. Who knew about AMD? It didn't help that they had better processors.
And when AMD finally took the top, Intel tried to undercut AMD by bribing computer manufacturers.
Intel is no saint, and their products aren't the best either. They stiffened up from the competition from AMD. They had to.
And now, AMD must do, as well. It's a war and we'll see both of them going and up and down, I'll bet. Just like AMD (previously ATI) and nVidia.
You're in a dream world. We're not talking about something subjective here like which is the better operating system. We're talking about CPU performance. Something that is and has always been benchmarked. AMD wasn't really the dominating force until the K7 in 1999. Even the K6 was inferior to the Pentium III. This is on top of the fact that AMD made its living off of cloning Intel chips for second-rate OEMs in the 80s and 90s. Your analogy to Microsoft and Intel is out of nowhere and really makes no sense. All your trying to do is poison the well on the argument by associating Intel with a company everyone loves to hate.
You know what... I think AMD is a lot like Casio or Waffle House. Bad business, man. Bad business.
Sent from my iPadŽ
AMD never actually sold any "clones" until K5 - there was a license agreement with Intel that allowed (still allows, I believe) AMD to produce direct copies of Intels processors - AMD was given the designs from Intel, so it is not clones in the same way that some of the other manfacturers did it - although Intel didn't always update AMD on minor bugs found by them - I remember something going a bit awry if you did a reset whilst doing a floating point calculation, which we had to work around in the software to avoid the result still being there when the processor came back - or some such [this was found in an embedded 486, several years after 486's were no longer used as desktop/laptop PC processors, so I guess it wasn't a big issue at the time].
Both of K5 and K6 are actually technically better than P3 (clock-for-clock they were better), but AMD was unable to ramp up the speeds of K5 and K6 to keep up with Intels P2 and P3 processors. K7 and K8 were good successes, and couldn't have been done without the understanding gained from K5 and K6. Unfortunately, K10 (current quad core processors) was badly managed it appears, and thus didn't succeed as well as it should have done due to issues that should have been handled earlier than they were - a pressure to bring something out in a certain time-frame, and it didn't pay off, I think.
Yes, AMD has certainly made some bad business decisions. Producing clones is not one of them - second source for Intel, yes.
--
Mats
Compilers can produce warnings - make the compiler programmers happy: Use them!
Please don't PM me for help - and no, I don't do help over instant messengers.
I wasn't implying that they were ripping Intel off, I was saying that the only thing that kept AMD around for those decades was the fact that Intel was in agreement to give AMD their designs. Also, clock-for-clock is no way to compare chips... as you said yourself, AMD couldn't get the speeds up on the K5 or K6 to compete. The real way to compare these chips is by price. When computers with K6s were coming out, they were no cheaper than the computers with the Pentium 3s.
Last edited by SlyMaelstrom; 12-07-2008 at 07:31 AM.
Sent from my iPadŽ
Why can't people agree on that the best, is the one you like the best? This includes myself :P
And I like AMD better, 'cause of their processor names, like phenom is way cooler than core2quad, if that can even be compared, but you should get the point :P
And as I said, it's extremely expensive where I live, so I don't even want you people telling me stories of how cheap yours was -.-
Currently research OpenGL
You seem to live in a world where only Intel are gods and AMD is something poor and useless. You keep dismissing AMD as if they were nothing, and that Intel is superior and is the only force to be reckoned with and always will be.
And I am trying to get it into your head that that is not true!
Everyone keeps mentioning Core 2 everywhere. And except for laptops, I have never owned a Core 2. I stick with AMD's processors, which are generally cheaper. And up until Core 2, also better in terms of performance.
And one day, AMD will beat Intel again and the cycle will continue.
You gotta tell me where you shop, because I'd expect to pay at least 2 or 3 times the price for most of that stuff. 4GB RAM for $50? 250 GB HD for $50??
Try price comparison sites. I'm sure you'll find stuff for that price or cheaper.
I have found 4 GB memory for around $30 or so (local currency converted to US, mind).
Likewise, I think I have spotted a hard drive with around 750 GB for around $100.
Then order the parts and build them together and you can get a gaming PC for a fraction of the retail price.
