AMD Sempron ships

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Felger Carbon" <fmsfnf@jfoops.net> wrote:

>If you seriously want to challenge someone's intellectual dexterity, I
>suggest sweetly inquiring if they rode the short bus to school. ;-)

What an embezzle.

8)
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Judd" <IhateSpam@stopspam.com> wrote:

>The Intel haters and AMD lovers should post to that group rather than
>flooding comp.sys.intel with propoganda. It's to the point now where you
>can't talk nor get any information on Intel processors and architecture
>without the constant bashing. There should be a
>comp.religious.processor.wars or something more suitable for that stuff.

Don't bait the AMD lovers in here. There's too many of them and
they're too easily whipped-up into a frenzy. When you're in the
minority, you need to tread lightly, especially now that AMD is, once
again, temporarily in the lead. 8)
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Johannes H Andersen wrote:
>
> JK wrote:

[SNIP]

>>Interesting software projects? It is a pity that none of them are 64 bit.
>
>
> Maybe for you, but my software is solving real problems in the real world.

I've solved some real world problems that didn't need 64bit addressing
but they *really* flew SIMD style with 64bit registers as opposed to
32bit... That was back in 1996 too, pretty sure printing presses are
still running so I figure that real world problem will still be there
too. :)

If your business is compiling you might want to consider AMD (XP or A64)
in preference to P4 chips anyway. The AMD chips seem to offer far better
bang for buck in that department.

Cheers,
Rupert
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Tony Hill wrote:
>
> On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 10:09:14 GMT, Johannes H Andersen
> <johs@nsaeccueuesizefitterwruovweswernuao.com> wrote:
> >> Everything considered? Did you consider a 64 bit OS and 64 bit software????
> >
> >No I didn't. I can't afford to buy new OS and new 64 bit compilers which will
> >cost a fortune, so I stick to what I've got at the moment, and it does the job
> >to everybody's satisfaction
>
> <Tony dons his flame-proof suit>
>
> Well the obviously answer here is that you should be running Linux and
> using the free GCC compiler! :>

You're quite right I should be running Linux & Kylix, but I don't at the moment.
Maybe I'll come back to that later. All that is very interesting, but in the
meantime I have to get the work done.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Rupert Pigott wrote:
>
> Johannes H Andersen wrote:
> >
> > JK wrote:
>
> [SNIP]
>
> >>Interesting software projects? It is a pity that none of them are 64 bit.
> >
> >
> > Maybe for you, but my software is solving real problems in the real world.
>
> I've solved some real world problems that didn't need 64bit addressing
> but they *really* flew SIMD style with 64bit registers as opposed to
> 32bit... That was back in 1996 too, pretty sure printing presses are
> still running so I figure that real world problem will still be there
> too. :)

I can beat that since I programmed on a Cray-1 in 1978. 64 bits is nothing new.

> If your business is compiling you might want to consider AMD (XP or A64)
> in preference to P4 chips anyway. The AMD chips seem to offer far better
> bang for buck in that department.

Possibly, but see other posts.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

chrisv wrote:
> Don't bait the AMD lovers in here. There's too many of them and
> they're too easily whipped-up into a frenzy. When you're in the
> minority, you need to tread lightly, especially now that AMD is, once
> again, temporarily in the lead. 8)

Technologically, yes, but still a long way to go marketing wise.

Yousuf Khan
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 11:05:47 -0500, chrisv wrote:

> "Judd" <IhateSpam@stopspam.com> wrote:
>
>>The Intel haters and AMD lovers should post to that group rather than
>>flooding comp.sys.intel with propoganda. It's to the point now where you
>>can't talk nor get any information on Intel processors and architecture
>>without the constant bashing. There should be a
>>comp.religious.processor.wars or something more suitable for that stuff.
>
> Don't bait the AMD lovers in here. There's too many of them and
> they're too easily whipped-up into a frenzy. When you're in the
> minority, you need to tread lightly, especially now that AMD is, once
> again, temporarily in the lead. 8)

Certainly! When you're *wrong* it pays to keep silent. There are vary
few excuses to buy Intel at this particular point. There are many reasons
to go elsewhere.

--
Keith
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 19:34:27 +0000, Yousuf Khan wrote:

> chrisv wrote:
>> Don't bait the AMD lovers in here. There's too many of them and
>> they're too easily whipped-up into a frenzy. When you're in the
>> minority, you need to tread lightly, especially now that AMD is, once
>> again, temporarily in the lead. 8)
>
> Technologically, yes, but still a long way to go marketing wise.

I won't even give AMD the technology edge. Certainly I'll give
them the management edge. Intel has been impressive in their corporate
attempts to paint themselves into a corner. AMD has simply found that heel
and executed rather well. The K6 equalled the PII, then the K7 took over.
While Intel toyed with the Itanic (and a few $Billion), AMD learned by
reading the history books.

--
Keith
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Keith wrote:
>> Technologically, yes, but still a long way to go marketing wise.
>
> I won't even give AMD the technology edge. Certainly I'll give
> them the management edge. Intel has been impressive in their
> corporate attempts to paint themselves into a corner. AMD has simply
> found that heel and executed rather well. The K6 equalled the PII,
> then the K7 took over. While Intel toyed with the Itanic (and a few
> $Billion), AMD learned by reading the history books.

It wasn't so long ago when people were critisizing AMD's management (prior
to the Hammer processors coming out), because all it had competing against
the P4 was the Athlon XPs, which weren't being updated at a fast enough
pace.

Yousuf Khan
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news😛an.2004.07.31.17.44.33.167510@att.bizzzz...
> On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 01:51:22 +0000, Lee Waun wrote:
>
> >
> > "JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
> > news:410AA9D0.A6AA3FBC@netscape.net...
> >> It is not a matter of bashing, it is a matter of explaining to people
> >> that they should research the alternatives first, then decide if an
> >> Intel processor is a good choice. In most instances, an AMD
> >> processor will provide better performance at each price point.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > No if we want to learn about AMD we can go research it. We don't need
you
> > AMD lovers cramming it down our throats. If I want a space heater for I
> > computer I would have bought a AMD years ago. Now Intel has the
prescotts
> > which are even better space heaters than the AMD's so once again Intel
is
> > superior.
>
> Ok, you're saying, "I'm stupid and wish to remain so"? Or more like, "my
> mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts"?
> >
> > True I just want a computer so I will stick to my Northwood.
>
> You didn't research before you bought and now don't want to be told that
> you made a mistake? Burry your head deeper. The world will ignore you.
>
> --
No I did all the research I needed too and I don't want AMD. I want the
industry standard which is Intel. Not AMD.


> Keith
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"nobody@nowhere.net" <mygarbage2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:je8og0dj2hpr34elq2r8hkrgqfg8872fpe@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 14:00:34 -0600, "Judd" <IhateSpam@stopspam.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The Intel haters and AMD lovers should post to that group rather than
> >flooding comp.sys.intel with propoganda. It's to the point now where you
> >can't talk nor get any information on Intel processors and architecture
> >without the constant bashing. There should be a
> >comp.religious.processor.wars or something more suitable for that stuff.
> >
> Ever heard of the 1st Amendment? If you don't like it, you are free
> to go someplace like Cuba. Over there, neither INTC nor AMD is
> superior, that definition is reserved for Fidel exclusively. Oh, by
> the way, you'd be lucky to have just any CPU and 9.6k dialup over
> there...
>

Believe it or not some people here are not American and really don't care
one bit about your stupid yankee 1st Amendment. Cuba is a nice place to
vacation too. Several of my friends have been there several times.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Lee Waun <leewaun@telus.net> wrote:
> No I did all the research I needed too and I don't want
> AMD. I want the industry standard which is Intel. Not AMD.

Uhm, x86 has never been a standard in the sense of having
an industry organization/committee (IEEE, ACM, ... )
develop and publish written standards.

That said, Intel has been a "de facto" standard in that
their competitors (AMD, VIA, ...) tend to incorporate more
of Intel's features than Intel incorporates of theirs.

As Keith points out, your research is out of date. The standard
is shifting. With the miserable failure of IA64 (Itanium), it
looks like Intel will incorporate AMDs x86-64 wholesale in Banias.

-- Robert
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Lee Waun <leewaun@telus.net> wrote:
> Believe it or not some people here are not American and really
> don't care one bit about your stupid yankee 1st Amendment.

Ah, but Americans care very much about the 1st Amendment and will
behave accordingly. Helping you be free whether you want it or not.

Freedom anywhere advances freedom everywhere.

-- Robert
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Lee Waun wrote:
> "Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
> news😛an.2004.07.31.17.44.33.167510@att.bizzzz...
>
>>On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 01:51:22 +0000, Lee Waun wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
>>>news:410AA9D0.A6AA3FBC@netscape.net...
>>>
>>>>It is not a matter of bashing, it is a matter of explaining to people
>>>>that they should research the alternatives first, then decide if an
>>>>Intel processor is a good choice. In most instances, an AMD
>>>>processor will provide better performance at each price point.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>No if we want to learn about AMD we can go research it. We don't need
>
> you
>
>>>AMD lovers cramming it down our throats. If I want a space heater for I
>>>computer I would have bought a AMD years ago. Now Intel has the
>
> prescotts
>
>>>which are even better space heaters than the AMD's so once again Intel
>
> is
>
>>>superior.
>>
>>Ok, you're saying, "I'm stupid and wish to remain so"? Or more like, "my
>>mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts"?
>>
>>>True I just want a computer so I will stick to my Northwood.
>>
>>You didn't research before you bought and now don't want to be told that
>>you made a mistake? Burry your head deeper. The world will ignore you.
>>
>>--
>
> No I did all the research I needed too and I don't want AMD. I want the
> industry standard which is Intel. Not AMD.
>

And that is why standards improve so slowly - because
people settle for the "standard" when better things
abound.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 06:52:42 +0000, Yousuf Khan wrote:

> Keith wrote:
>>> Technologically, yes, but still a long way to go marketing wise.
>>
>> I won't even give AMD the technology edge. Certainly I'll give
>> them the management edge. Intel has been impressive in their
>> corporate attempts to paint themselves into a corner. AMD has simply
>> found that heel and executed rather well. The K6 equalled the PII,
>> then the K7 took over. While Intel toyed with the Itanic (and a few
>> $Billion), AMD learned by reading the history books.
>
> It wasn't so long ago when people were critisizing AMD's management (prior
> to the Hammer processors coming out), because all it had competing against
> the P4 was the Athlon XPs, which weren't being updated at a fast enough
> pace.

Only the impatient kidz on Christmas morning who couldn't wait for a
hammer. I don't see Intel racing for 6GHz (as promised) either.

--
Keith
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 17:45:28 +0000, Lee Waun wrote:

>
> "nobody@nowhere.net" <mygarbage2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:je8og0dj2hpr34elq2r8hkrgqfg8872fpe@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 14:00:34 -0600, "Judd" <IhateSpam@stopspam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The Intel haters and AMD lovers should post to that group rather than
>> >flooding comp.sys.intel with propoganda. It's to the point now where you
>> >can't talk nor get any information on Intel processors and architecture
>> >without the constant bashing. There should be a
>> >comp.religious.processor.wars or something more suitable for that stuff.
>> >
>> Ever heard of the 1st Amendment? If you don't like it, you are free
>> to go someplace like Cuba. Over there, neither INTC nor AMD is
>> superior, that definition is reserved for Fidel exclusively. Oh, by
>> the way, you'd be lucky to have just any CPU and 9.6k dialup over
>> there...
>>
>
> Believe it or not some people here are not American and really don't care
> one bit about your stupid yankee 1st Amendment. Cuba is a nice place to
> vacation too. Several of my friends have been there several times.

I hear the Cubans love living there too. Perhaps you should think this
trough before commenting again.

--
Keith
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 17:36:19 +0000, Lee Waun wrote:

>
> "Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
> news😛an.2004.07.31.17.44.33.167510@att.bizzzz...
>> On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 01:51:22 +0000, Lee Waun wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
>> > news:410AA9D0.A6AA3FBC@netscape.net...
>> >> It is not a matter of bashing, it is a matter of explaining to people
>> >> that they should research the alternatives first, then decide if an
>> >> Intel processor is a good choice. In most instances, an AMD
>> >> processor will provide better performance at each price point.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > No if we want to learn about AMD we can go research it. We don't need
> you
>> > AMD lovers cramming it down our throats. If I want a space heater for I
>> > computer I would have bought a AMD years ago. Now Intel has the
> prescotts
>> > which are even better space heaters than the AMD's so once again Intel
> is
>> > superior.
>>
>> Ok, you're saying, "I'm stupid and wish to remain so"? Or more like, "my
>> mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts"?
>> >
>> > True I just want a computer so I will stick to my Northwood.
>>
>> You didn't research before you bought and now don't want to be told that
>> you made a mistake? Burry your head deeper. The world will ignore you.
>>
>> --
> No I did all the research I needed too and I don't want AMD. I want the
> industry standard which is Intel. Not AMD.

For some reason you insist on proving me right (you are an idiot). You've
been told to open your eyes, yet insist that blindness is natural (more
evidence of your ignroance can be found in your X-Newsreader tag).

Hint: Intel is no more "standard" than AMD. Indeed Intel is no more
consistent with Intel as AMD is with Intel. Each processor has its
quirks and Intel has proven their mettle at quirkiness with the P4. Not
to mention that Intel is now following (and poorly, I might add) AMD down
the *AMD64* architecure path. Please do note the *AMD* in that
architecture name.

Please do come back and discuss reality when you've grown up a bit. Those
who work in the business might teach you somethign once you admit that
you don't know...

--
Keith
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Keith wrote:
> Only the impatient kidz on Christmas morning who couldn't wait for a
> hammer. I don't see Intel racing for 6GHz (as promised) either.

True, though they're still trying to stretch towards 4Ghz. Eventually, this
entire Ghz thing will be a distant memory, after Intel switches over to its
Conroe core (Pentium-M for the desktop), or perhaps *two* Conroe cores.

Anyways, technical management issues aside, now that Intel has got its
64-bit Xeons, and now that it's even evident that it's released 64-bit
Prescotts, one of the marketing advantages of AMD is completely gone. I
suppose AMD could try to claim that it was "the original 64-bit" processor
maker, which would sound great, but would be booed off the stage by people
claiming everything from MIPS and Alpha to Nintendo got there before it.
Then they might change the slogan to "the original 64-bit x86 processor",
which would be received with blank stares by people who would ask "what in
the heck is an x86 processor?" More factually accurate, but less marketingly
attractive. Perhaps they would go for, "the original Microsoft Windows
64-bit processor?" Which could be challenged by Intel saying that since
Microsoft Windows for 64-bit extended systems isn't here yet, by the time it
actually arrives, Intel will be there alongside AMD. Ah the life of a
marketeer.

Yousuf Khan
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:

>Anyways, technical management issues aside, now that Intel has got its
>64-bit Xeons, and now that it's even evident that it's released 64-bit
>Prescotts, one of the marketing advantages of AMD is completely gone. I
>suppose AMD could try to claim that it was "the original 64-bit" processor
>maker, which would sound great, but would be booed off the stage by people
>claiming everything from MIPS and Alpha to Nintendo got there before it.
>Then they might change the slogan to "the original 64-bit x86 processor",
>which would be received with blank stares by people who would ask "what in
>the heck is an x86 processor?" More factually accurate, but less marketingly
>attractive. Perhaps they would go for, "the original Microsoft Windows
>64-bit processor?" Which could be challenged by Intel saying that since
>Microsoft Windows for 64-bit extended systems isn't here yet, by the time it
>actually arrives, Intel will be there alongside AMD. Ah the life of a
>marketeer.

None of that matters. In the constantly-changing CPU market, what you
did last year is irrelevant. All that matters is the performance and
price of what you are selling today. I don't see any reason to
believe that there will be a change in the pattern of the last decade,
i.e. Intel, being the market leader, sets prices, and AMD follows with
somewhat lower prices for any given level of perceived performance.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

>On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 06:52:42 +0000, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>>
>> It wasn't so long ago when people were critisizing AMD's management (prior
>> to the Hammer processors coming out), because all it had competing against
>> the P4 was the Athlon XPs, which weren't being updated at a fast enough
>> pace.
>
>Only the impatient kidz on Christmas morning who couldn't wait for a
>hammer. I don't see Intel racing for 6GHz (as promised) either.

Well, no surprise that good things happen for those who wait, but that
doesn't mean that NOT waiting is a poor decision, if your machine
isn't keeping up with what you want it to do... And lot's of folks
would argue that the AMD64 didn't become truly appealing until socket
939 came out, which was only recently, and is still expensive.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In article <7qb4h05q3dti5kbahqtq9lm3hs1f4maa0s@4ax.com>,
chrisv@nospam.invalid says...
> Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 06:52:42 +0000, Yousuf Khan wrote:
> >>
> >> It wasn't so long ago when people were critisizing AMD's management (prior
> >> to the Hammer processors coming out), because all it had competing against
> >> the P4 was the Athlon XPs, which weren't being updated at a fast enough
> >> pace.
> >
> >Only the impatient kidz on Christmas morning who couldn't wait for a
> >hammer. I don't see Intel racing for 6GHz (as promised) either.
>
> Well, no surprise that good things happen for those who wait, but that
> doesn't mean that NOT waiting is a poor decision, if your machine
> isn't keeping up with what you want it to do...

So far, I agree 100%.

> And lot's of folks
> would argue that the AMD64 didn't become truly appealing until socket
> 939 came out, which was only recently, and is still expensive.

Not quite 100%. My Opteron 144 s/940 system (including the 19"
professional grade monitor) cost me $1100ish. My first IBMPC with a
4.77MHz 8088 and 12" green-screen cost $2500ish (after a quite
substantial discount). ...not to mention the 22 years difference in
the dollar (or the fact that it's not the salary for a month, rather
more like half a week). Sure it's more expensive than a stick of
celery, but hardly *expensive*.

OTOH, I didn't buy a G5 because that was too "expensive". ;-)

--
Keith
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

> Interesting software projects? It is a pity that none of them are 64 bit.

Why's that, one must be a really newbie to get kicks out of word size?
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

> I hear the Cubans love living there too. Perhaps you should think this
> trough before commenting again.

What is the first amandment anyway? Any reason why should give a ****?
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

> Certainly! When you're *wrong* it pays to keep silent. There are vary
> few excuses to buy Intel at this particular point. There are many reasons
> to go elsewhere.

$70 price premium out of total of $1600 for a full assembled system being
the best reason that springs to mind. Certainly! That is a good reason to
have flamewars over!
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

> OTOH, I didn't buy a G5 because that was too "expensive". ;-)

I thought Americans are rich, average income is nearly $50,000 per capita,
so even average guy could easily afford to use few K's in electronic gadget.
With that income I am amazed that price is always the #1 issue in the NG, I
take most participants are from Cuba?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom