Yeah, this has probably been posted a million times.. But since the release of AMD's Athlon 64 FX, what do you think...?
Is Intel working on something similar? Or Not?
AMD
Intel
Yeah, this has probably been posted a million times.. But since the release of AMD's Athlon 64 FX, what do you think...?
Is Intel working on something similar? Or Not?
.
As a matter of experience ESPECIALLY with small hardware like laptops or 1U servers or the like, Intel just runs cooler. No its not joe camel, im saying that during a heat emergency, it will throttle itself down to a safe speed, vs AMD will just fry itself, your motherboard, and anything within about a foot of it. AMD do run hotter, and are more demanding to cool, and dont know how to slow down should their heat sync die or whatnot.
For me, I've always been an amd guy.
It was still sort of a tossup, amd does more calcs per cycle, intel does more cycles per second...they were pretty close to even as far as i was concerned...then my dad bought an intel 4 with an intel mobo when we replaced the fried one in our computer. I HATE it! That hardware support is lame, it chokes (even with the bios update) when you try to put 2 hdd's one one ide channel, and 2 cd drives on the other channel. If you put one of each on each channel it boots, otherwise it doesn't even complete post. What junk! Till then I didn't have a major problem with intel, now I'm staying away from them for sure....besides the whole they cost a butload more thing, but yeah.
BTW: I don't see why the AMD 64 would even do any good to any of us, unless we're running our own server (with an OS that takes advantage of 64 bit processors). Otherwise it's just another x86 (you are referring to the 64/x86 hybrid model they're putting out right?)
I'm still waiting for AMD's FSB to catch up to the newest generation of intels, thats the one thing i give intel credit for, fast FSB's.
PHP and XML
Let's talk about SAX
P4 EE kicks AMD 64's ass nuff said...
That's not in any way, shape, or form a valid argument anymore. The roles will have swaped, Intel's prescott will be (is currently) putting out roughly 103 Watts, the A64 somewhere in the 60's (exact number not released AFAIK). Prescott runs idle somewhere in the region of 50 degress C, load in the 60's.Originally posted by DeepBlackMagic
As a matter of experience ESPECIALLY with small hardware like laptops or 1U servers or the like, Intel just runs cooler. No its not joe camel, im saying that during a heat emergency, it will throttle itself down to a safe speed, vs AMD will just fry itself, your motherboard, and anything within about a foot of it. AMD do run hotter, and are more demanding to cool, and dont know how to slow down should their heat sync die or whatnot.
You guys should really check out the A64... in basic terms here's what you get: A kick ass 32 bit processor with the added benefit of 64 bit support. Even if you never run a 64 bit program, you will not be at a loss. The 1 MB of L2 cache and onboard memory controler means, simply put, kick ass performance. Intel has a 800 MHz FSB? So what, the AMD runs at 1600 MHz (there is no FSB).
Don't look at the FX though, right now it's not really worth the money. No doubt it's cool, but it's too expensive for what you get. $800 CPU? ECC RAM? Mobo to support it? All for dual-channel support and 200 MHz stock CPU speed? Not worth it yet, the standard A64 at $405 is simply put a kick ass deal. The FX of next year will be the real deal, this is just something to keep enthusiests happy. When the SanDiego core comes out it's all over for Intel. 2.6 GHz, dual channel NON-ECC, all the fun stuff
Is Intel working on 64 bit technology? There's rumours of it (Yamhil) but no solid proof. And if it's proprietary 64 bit instead x86-64 then it will have all been a waste of money... unless Intel wants to make their own OS of course. Microsoft will only make 64 bit windows to support AMD-64 (and IA-64 of course, but that's not what Yamhill is).
Not enough said. You find me reviews of the P4EE winning, and I'll counter with just as many with the A64 winning. And at half the price ($405 for A64 Vs. $925 for the non-existant P4 EE) is the P4 Emergency Edition really the winner?Originally posted by ZerOrDie
P4 EE kicks AMD 64's ass nuff said...
It's no wonder AMD does so poorly... so many people that are blinded by Intel and their marketing...
>>Intel and their marketing
exactly, that goes for all the major computer companies, and stores who sell mostly computer or high tech parts. They advertise the most, and push products that may not be top of the line at top dollar. I've always been skeptical of companies who own so much of a market (microsoft, intel, for stores: best buy). MS sells an OS that works great, costs 200 dollars, and takes about an hour to set up. Mandrake offers an OS that works great, costs nothing (like 40-50 bucks for the 7 cd set with thousands of third party apps, nothing ms would do), and takes 15 minutes to set up on the same computer it took ms and hour. AMD and Intel offer comparable processors in many categories, AMD costs way less. Best buy sells a 40 gig hdd for 60 bucks, www.newegg.com sells an 80 gig for the same price.
It's all marketing, if people think it's the only or the best thing out there they'll but it at any price.
BTW: the poll is turning out pretty good, it's still split 2-2 at this post
PHP and XML
Let's talk about SAX
Your trying to compare apples and oranges. In no way shape or form is an intel 32bit chip comprable with some other companys 64bit chip. And as for intels 64bit chips, havent you heard of Itanium? Yes its expencive as hell, but it kicks the crap out of amd's 64bit chip in most PRACTICAL tests (things it will auctually be used for like DATABASES.) As far as 32bit goes, intel won the fight long ago, and while 64bit is just getting started, there is no need for a consumer to even look at it. There are no OSs or programs that take advantage of the extra registers provided by 64bit chips, and there would only be an estimated 10% gain in performance if some company were to rewrite their software to use 64bit features (Assuming similar speeds in chips compared) Face it, in todays market a fast front side bus for multiple media streams is FAR more important than more aucurate floating point numbers.
Blah blah. Yes Yes. Just buy the AMD and be happy.
Such is life.
>>Your trying to compare apples and oranges
who was comparing amd64 to i32?
PHP and XML
Let's talk about SAX
Good questionOriginally posted by Waldo2k2
>>Your trying to compare apples and oranges
who was comparing amd64 to i32?
>> Face it, in todays market a fast front side bus for multiple media streams is FAR more important than more aucurate floating point numbers.
Let me quote myself:
Intel has a 800 MHz FSB? So what, the AMD runs at 1600 MHz (there is no FSB).
Last edited by TravisS; 10-11-2003 at 06:33 PM.
I dont like you.Originally posted by ZerOrDie
P4 EE kicks AMD 64's ass nuff said...
Yeah, thats what im referring to... Its supposed to be the only 64-bit processor compatible with Windows (or so i've read..) I only really became interested since they started using it in Alienware PCs, so thats why I asked.Originally posted by Waldo2k2
BTW: I don't see why the AMD 64 would even do any good to any of us, unless we're running our own server (with an OS that takes advantage of 64 bit processors). Otherwise it's just another x86 (you are referring to the 64/x86 hybrid model they're putting out right?)
I'm still waiting for AMD's FSB to catch up to the newest generation of intels, thats the one thing i give intel credit for, fast FSB's.
.
Well, even to say it's the ONLY 64 bit CPU compatible with Windows is bit of a lie
Intel's Itanium came out long before the A64, and with it was 64 bit XP. But, IA-64 is hugely different then X86-64 and can only run 32 bit programs through emulation, which is increadibly slow.
Operton came out before A64 as well, and it IS X86-64, so once again, that A64 isn't really the first and only... but the A64 is the first and only desktop CPU for Windows, now we just need the 64 bit Windows to follow
Intel will eventually go 64 bit, and you know they will. It's really just a matter of time. But will they give up their IA-64 that they've fought so hard for? Or will they go with "AMD-64"?
Oh, and 64 bit programs are not completely usesless for the standard home user. Yes, the server market will make better use (and they get the Operton) but the extended number crunching ability is a bonus. Even AMD is refering to the 64 bit ability as a "bonus". It's backwards compatible for when the 64 bit change goes through, but it's one kick ass 32 bit CPU for now.
Last i heard 64bit winblows isnt even out yet. There are no prety graphical consumer OSs that will use it so why buy it? Are all the software companys going to change overnight and start coding in 64bit? Especially the way the IT industry is right now. Its unrealistic to see a 64bit world in the next 7 years.
>>
Oh, and 64 bit programs are not completely usesless for the standard home user
show me a program that makes use of a 64 bit address space and i'll agree with you, till then
PHP and XML
Let's talk about SAX
