AMD vs. Intel: Refuting Historical Inaccuracies

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
That is a load of BS keith. Inflammatory over at that site means anything that actually says Intel's name. You would have to say spintel. Or disagreeing with them zealots. If they banned for the reason's you stated then 90 percent of them AMD tools would be banned. But since they do it in defense of the AMD cult its all good. Those forums are joke.
 


I totally agree that Intel IGPs are craps. As an enthusiast and gamer, there's no way I'm going to touch IGP with a 6 feet pole.

But that's not the point of IGP is it? The point of IGP is to provide the masses who doesn't need that much performance a simple graphics accelerator so they can do their daily tasks. I don't need a 790GP for my work computer, because all it does it sit there and suck up electricity. That's exactly the reason why while Intel's IGP is horrifically slow, it is still the most used graphics card on the market.
 



Okay... i forgot that the 9900 was 2.6Ghz. And the 9600 was 2.3Ghz.

So let's review the figures you gave again. Yep: basically that didn't matter; two results are still tied.


92@2.3 or 99@2.6 versus 104@2.4 == A tied score (Pushing my limit but it's close enough to not matter. But it's within 10% that's good enough.)
313@2.3 or 285@2.6 versus 301@2.4 == another tied score.





Perhaps. But if that happened was it the opinion that caused it or was it being off topic? And if it was on-topic was the poster actually not being inflammatory?

The bottom line is that the people I've seen banned from that forum deserved to be banned.
 


Oh right right...


Wait a minute... Phenom 9900 didn't exist.
 
Demanding games have become rare.
Gfx cards have exceded the needs/demands from games as of late.
The next few gens of gfx cards and IGPs will expand exponentually in ability, with fusion and process, HKMG etc.
Itll be soon that the IGP doesnt matter will no longer be true, especially as we move more and more to mobile.
If Intel stays with their current IGPs, theyll lose, which is to my point, and why LRB is so important to Intel going forwards, as the alternatives will leave them in the dust without it
 


So based on your logic your graphs are incorrect and should therefore be ignored.

Besides... even if it didn't exist... the 9600 at 2.3Ghz basically had no problems keeping up with the Q6600.

As discussed many times before: The problem is in what people will accept as being "tied". For me if scores are within 5%-10% then basically they are tied scores. End of story. But I know that for some people... if the score is within 1% with their "favorite" winning then they're on forums claiming how their preferred brand "totally wiped out the competition."

But oh well. I guess poor AMD just couldn't keep up and had a complete failure on their hands. Oh woe is me. <yawn> They brought out a new architecture that competed with chips that had been out long enought to have several steppings and could only come within 5%-10% of the stock per stock scores. What losers.
 


Truth? What you quote as being the "truth" is nothing more than spinning information you deem to have a negative effect on your favorite company "AMD" into something of a more positive fashion. It is a tactic employed in politics these days but had it's beginnings in corporate communications (The Medium is the Message: meaning that the form of a medium embeds itself in the message, creating a symbiotic relationship by which the medium influences how the message is perceived).

The way I laid out the claims was and is from a historically accurate time line of events. What you're attempting to do is counter the facts (historical evidence) by claiming that the evidence itself means nothing due to reasons A, B, C.

This could be acceptable if the reasons given were reasonable (which they aren't). To give you one example you give the reason:

"Let me repeat the little truth that is making your head crazy: The company that successfully implements a technology is actually more innovative than a company that invents it and doesn't use it."

This reason is a blatant red herring/fallacious argument since the Company (Intel) did successfully implement a technology (Integrate Memory Controller) into a product (i386SL/i486SL). So by your own definition since Intel did create the technology and implement it on the x86 architecture therefore by your own definition Intel did innovate (therefore your entire post was a waste of xxx characters) or are you now going to change the argument in an attempt to convince us all otherwise (an argument which plays into your own perceptions of reality).

As far as the AMDZone debate, I was creaming their pants... so much so that an admin stepped in and removed all of my posts (the posts were respectful btw). You can follow it all here: http://forum.****/general-chat-area/18975-my-trip-amdzone.html

Again you're making false claims in an attempt to discredit me and in doing so are discrediting yourself in the eyes of THG readers. I'm sticking to the facts (evidence). I am in no way "spinning" it in anyone's favor.

PS. I'm no Intel Fanboi.
 
Word was, in those days, every site said AMD needs to get their clocks up to compete.
Thats why my excitement about P2, and its huge ability over Phenom 1, which they did come thru on, and wasnt just claims.
And if you were already running Intel it wouldve seemed ho hum, it allowed AMD fans and new buyers/users another alternative
 


DING.

100% blind obedience is the only way to keep an account at AMDZone. I love how they come over here and lecture us about being biased when you can't even have a dissenting opinion without being banned there.
 

Avoiding?

To be honest I haven't been paying attention much.
 
But oh well. I guess poor AMD just couldn't keep up and had a complete failure on their hands. Oh woe is me. <yawn> They brought out a new architecture that competed with chips that had been out long enought to have several steppings and could only come within 5%-10% of the stock per stock scores. What losers.

What did Intel do with first Core 2 and then Core i7 against architectures that had 'been out long enough to have several steppings'? They blew them away. That's what. Pardon me if I don't consider coming within 10% of your competitors year old product a particularly impressive feat.
 


GF = Global Foundries, not Graphics. The switch to GF has taken a lot on top of the huge purchase of ATI thus they don't have the resources to pump out a new stepping every 3-4 months like Intel.



NO!!!! DO NOT MENTION THE FX SERIES!!!!!! IT COMPLETELY DISPROVES ANY POINT!!!!

I find it funny how whenever anyone mentions the FX series of CPUs and when AMDs Athlon 64/X2 series was priced like Intels Core i5/i7 line is they seem to ignore it.

I think it may be that they want to think of AMD as the budget savior and that AMD would never price gouge us....... oh wait:

data-small_new.jpg


Well.... AMD Athlon FX-74 same price as a Intels quad core. Over $1K. But AMD is our champion and would never make prices this high!!!!!

People need to remember that AMD is a business. Do they care about you? No. Do they care that you have little money? Well yes but its only so they can take that money.

Oh and the QX6700 was cheaper than the FX-74 setup yet it performed better stock vs stock, clock vs clock and when OCed.



No Intels solution wont be the same as AMDs. But it will bring a cheap, low power alternative for people looking for it. Much like their current IGPs. Then when they have LRB down I am sure they will put that.

What it means is Intel will be on the forefront of a SoC much like they were witn timna (Well for x86 anyways).



Because we all know that if Intel bought nVidia, we all know that the EU would accuse Intel of unfair practices and that they are making it hard for consumer or something to find another reason to fine them over a billion and stuff their pockets.

Intel has been working LRB for a while. It wasn't a last minute idea. If you look at Intel they already make pretty much everything fro a PC sans the disk drive and RAM. It was only a matter of time for them to get into (true) GPUs.



Bingo.



Funniest thing is that this wasn't a AMD vs Intel superiority thread. In fact it was a informative thread posting a lot of facts supporting his point. And I have been to AMDFanzone. Not for the middleman or non AMD lover.

As for Barcy, it was a fialure considering that they had to do a stop ship and recall on their bread and butter server market chips. Sure the desktop chips were safe but unable to clock near Intels top end or even OC. Was it a full failure? No. But it sure as hell wasn't a success.

BTW, if you don't like it here and we are so "biased", evil and so on why do you keep coming back? Its awlays the same. BTW, nice way of pretty much derailing the thread over performance instead of the OP.



I would be pissed too if I made a thread at one site and they didn't like it thus banhammer.

but his post is an interesting one because it also applies here. A lot of those claims go around here a lot. Most of us know about DEC and their Alpha chip. I didn't know Intel owned the IP of Alpha though. That was a new one to me. I know Intel had plenty of production IMC based x86 CPUs.

But a lot of people wont count them because Intel moved to try something else.



Lol......

Thats funny..... Netburst close to K8.......

While I didn't hate my P4 system, I knew that K8 was better. K7 was so-so but K8 was better.

And Phenom was nowhere near close to Core 2 but some people like to tell themselves that to make themselves feel better.

AMD FTW IT TOTALY PWNS INTEL!!!!!

BTW, Elmo don't try vs keith. He will start something then take parts of your post and only go from there. Also he doesn't like to post any sort of links to fatcs because his opinion is right and he is teh PC godz.....
 



Thanks for the laugh, I spit coffee on my monitor.

Yeah... you're not an Intel Fanboy. Not at all. In any way. (At least in your dreams.)


As for the rest of your post... you want to argue about semantics. Have fun. Your arguments are technically accurate. But they make no difference in the real world. Intel did come out with the first IMC. They also did not implement it into their products and abandoned it. So sorry mention that reality to you. Since they abandoned it that means that they were not innovative.

Oh NOES. <CRY>

BTW: No spin involved. Just the cold hard facts that you absolutely hate.
 
Thus, the ho hum effect.
Point here is, to average Joe, it does matter, as they now have another alternative, if priced right.
This is leading to the good enough argument, which seems fine when refering to IGPs, and could just as easily be transferred to cpus, concerning average Joe at least, and alot of business as well
 
And give this stepping crap a rest. Its nothing but another brainless AMDzoner point. If I am not mistaking there was only two steppings of the q6600. The b3 and G0. The G0 used 10 watts less power and overclocked better. The peformance is exactly the same no matter what stepping you use.

I knows what coming next. But the e6600 had this many steppings. So add those..... No matter how you spin it the steppings down matter. And the Phenom was never generally clock for clock = to core
 


To them you are since you don't believe their way.

Welcome to the church of AMD. May your evil Intelspirits be banashed so that you may be happy again!!!



Yea I agree. As I said, AMD sat on K8 just improving the steppings until Core 2 came out. Then they worked on K10. It came within 10%. Considering it came after I would expect it to be on par or beat Core 2. In fact I was pretty sure it would.

I was wrong. K10 did not = K8. But there were people who couldn't handle that and thus they believe what they want and every benchmark that shows Intel is a paid by Intel benchmark or because Intel optimizes software for their CPUs which is evil....

Man I can't even begin to care anymore since the same argument gets annoying.
 


I respectfully disagree.

The IGPs nowadays, although much more powerful than their predecessor, is still a very far way off from the discrete graphics card. And while its true the point where most people can just forgo the discrete graphics card and go complete IGP, I don't believe that point is anywhere near in the next 3~5 years. The market distinction between IGP and discrete GPU is still very clear, because the performance disparity between them is still very large.

Which brings me to my next point: even if Intel's IGP still sucked compared to its competitors, OEMs and consumers are still going to gobble them up. It is still the cheapest solution on the market, and most people couldn't really care less whether they have a horrible IGP or a discrete graphics card. Will they care in the future? Possibly, when they can no longer run Windows' eye candy. But by that time, Intel will again come out with an IGP (that most likely is going to lag behind other companies) that is capable of running it. So its really a non issue.

As for Larabee, I doubt we will see it in the IGP in the next few years. Larabee is still in its prototype phase, and it will take some considerable time to reduce its footprint and power consumption to the level of IGPs. That's like trying to squeeze a 5870 into the size of an IGP. I personally doubt we'll ever see Larabee architecture inside the IGP, but I guess we'll have to wait and see.




Ok... let me get this straight.

So a 9600 at 2.3Ghz, the best AMD could offer at that time, about 5% to 35% slower than Q6600, which has been on the market for more than a year, had no problems keeping up with the it?

Can I really have some of those what you're smoking? Because I could really use them to see your point.



Sounds like you're trashing AMD! Am I getting this right? 😱

So what you're saying is that AMD spent a year trying to catch up to Intel with its "40% better performance across the board" new architecture, and only managed to land about 5%~35% worse than its supposed competition? And you're calling AMD a loser?

OMG!!! KeithLM is cured!! Rejoice!
 


Except for the fact that you can't handle the reality that some people do not share your same standard of measurement. To you that makes them a "fanboy" and "incorrect". They MUST share your standards or you will always discount anything they say or believe.

When you judge people based on your standard and will not allow them to have their own then apparently you aren't being a fanboy you're just... being... what word describes that... let me think... uh... yeah.... a fanboy.

OKAY... gotcha. I understand now. Anyone that doesn't blindly accept your standard is an "AMDZoner" and you are just an unbiased poster on this forum.

Based on that little fact... I'm glad not to be in the "unbiased" poster club. I wouldn't be able to blindly accept those standards. Based on the things you and your cohorts post... I will proudly wear the badge of "AMDZoner" you have bestowed upon me. (Even though I've not posted more than about 95 posts in two years. But that's okay... I'll accept being in their club much more readily than being in yours.)
 

All right, everyone who doesn't praise Intel every day, doesn't go to Intlechurch and doesn't shout: "OMG PENTIUM II FASTER THAN PHENOM II" is a fanboy to fanboys like you. It seems there is no feedom of speech on THG. I mean, there is, but if you say something against Intel or post your opinion and objective facts against Intel you get flamed.
 

Dude did anyone tell you you're the best of the best?
 


Let me correct that for you: "Intel did come out with the first IMC. They did implement it into their products but later abandoned it."

That's the "truth"*

You added some statements such as: "Since they abandoned it that means that they were not innovative" which is a matter of opinion but which is also unreasonable. If you come up with a technology and you use it on certain products but not on others then you're not innovating? How does that make sense? And how does one come to that conclusion? I don't see how one can make that jump other then if one already has a predisposition into believing that Company A. is superior to Company B. therefore Company A is above the rules while Company B. must live up to any rules I pull out of my rear end.


*Truth used as a term to signify that the statement complies with the known evidence.
 


For the most part, there haven't been flames.

You seem to get the most upset when people counter your illogical arguments with logical ones.


For example, we claim that Intel's best processor is faster than AMD's best processor, which it is.


However, in your post quoted above you have transformed our argument into "Pentium II is faster than Phenom II". You try to make us look silly by misrepresenting what we said, because you cannot refute our ACTUAL claims.



I recommend you go sign up at AMDZone, I'm sure you'll enjoy all the "freedom" of speech that you'll have there.
 


I never said you were an AMDZoner. But I did ask why you keep coming back to THG since not only are we all blind, rabid Intel fanboys but THG is also a bungch of paid Intel schills because according to your own research Phenom is superior and yadda yadda.

Seriously if you don't like it here and every time you seem to argue with someone or twist their original post into something else then why stay?

Then again never mind. You wont ever answer the question.



Actually I never said that but you don't see it the way I do. You have your eyes I have mine. I don't hate AMD, or those who use it. Looking into my next system build for a HTPC so I can DVR HD video of my fave shows and am looking into a Phenom II X3 and 4770 unless ATI makes a AIW again.

My point is that they will see Elmo as a fanboy because he doesn't agree that AMD is god.

My point? AMD is not great. They are a company. They don't care about you as a person, they wont set with you and make you feel better when you mother dies of the cancer evil Intel gave her. They will be just like Intel. They will try to get as much money out of you as they can.

So in the end, either way you go they don't give a crap. They want you money. Some people blindly support either side. Now I do prefer Intel a tad just because every time I look to build a new system for what I spend they turn out to be the best bang for the buck. But does that mean I am a fanboy? No.

Plus I like to argue when I see people spouting their opinions as facts or spinning facts.

Kinda funny how people dispute the i386/i486 as a CPU with a IMC. Just because Intel didn't continue with the IMC in the Pentium. But the i386/i486 with the IMC was a full production CPU given to the masses that who at the time could afford this new awesome mobile computer called a laptop........
 
Status
Not open for further replies.