AMD vs. Intel: Refuting Historical Inaccuracies

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.


Thank you, but I do not value your opinion as I am confident that you are too. Peace.

PS: I hate hotdogs.
 

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.
 
Lol... It seems that people on these forums just get everything seriously. That IQ mentioning of mine is totally unimportant, but if you want to know, it was a comeback to the post above. Also, I DID NOT question your knowledge and clearly said I want to debate no more. If you have to post a comeback to every word I say, I am really powerless of proving to you why people have no reason of spending $1000 on any CPU, be it AMD, Intel, VIA or Spintel...

Peace? *expects a page long post, fact proving and capital letters*...
 


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.
 


WOW... I actually agree with you on something. What is the world coming to? Next thing you know I'll be agreeing with Yomama and Hellboy. You know... all of you "unbiased" posters. I must be smoking some of the stuff you talked about earlier in the thread.

But anyway I agree: some people will pay extra for a CPU above the "price break" point. The PhII 965 is now only $200.00 which is only $20.00 more than the 955. I think the $20.00 is well worth the money since most of the time I run things on stock settings. (Yes... I know... I'm not an "enthusiast/overclocker". As if I care about titles like that.) If they release a PhII 975 (c3 stepping) and it is $300.00 and runs at 3.6Ghz I'll probably buy something like that the next time I upgrade.

So as I mentioned I agree with you. Call Guinness. But according to the current thread: That makes me an idiot for paying more for something when I could easily buy a 965 and overclock it 200Mhz. But since an additional $100.00 isn't enough to matter I'll spend it because I can.



BTW: As far as I saw in this thread: one of the Intel fanboys brought up the IQ 60 issue and not him. He just has all of you "good ole boys" jumping on him for adopting the insult brought up by one of them. Pretty sad. But not surprising since you guys gang up on people. After all... majority rules. Even when they're clueless.


As for the "facts" from the OP... he brought up things that are technically true but basically meaningless. For example: Intel had the first "IMC". But they abandoned it because they weren't ready for that technology and it didn't work like they wanted. AMD brought out the first mainstream architecture that implemented and adopted that technology. Intel followed. The other two "facts" he mentioned are just as meaningless. The bottom line in all three cases is that Intel wasn't the forefront of technology like so many people somehow want to pretend.

BUT HEY... I don't come to this forum for technical knowledge... I come here to laugh at the clueless fanboys. (I.e., "I wonder how completely ridiculous the Intel fanboys are going to be today.")
 


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:
Intel had the first "IMC". But they abandoned it because they weren't ready for that technology and it didn't work like they wanted. AMD brought out the first mainstream architecture that implemented and adopted that technology. Intel followed.
Click to expand...

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:
The bottom line in all three cases is that Intel wasn't the forefront of technology like so many people somehow want to pretend.
Click to expand...

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.
 


Yeah, I have no credibility. <yawn>

Other than the fact that what I said is true and relevant even if you don't like it. But thats okay... I don't need approval from a blatant Intel fanboy. I find your complete lack of cohesion to be completely humorous.

Now you've basically attempted to dissect my post the same way you created your original post: Using technically accurate statements that mean absolutely nothing and don't actually show anything except for your opinion. While you lambast my opinion by pretending that your opinion is backed by evidence that is meaningless and doesn't really change the situation. I'm sorry that your favorite company Intel just is not as innovative as you want to pretend.

Besides.... based on the rest of your rant I was waiting for you to quote Ayn Rand.

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. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. I'll cry for you later.

OH AND I MIGHT ADD: I looked at the thread you created on AMDZone where you claimed to "win" a debate. In fact there was no debate it was you posting your opinion and not liking it when people wouldn't agree with you. Pretty sad.
 
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
 
Elmoisevil for president.
Appreciate the posts, there will always be fans to fight back against whatever side you post on.

Although I think most of these AMD vs Intel arguments are really just people with slightly different view points. Often facts aren't debated, but their interpretation is.

With the IMC, Intel did it first on the x86 platform, but AMD made it massively available to everyone. I beleive that is the correct statement. AMD making it massively available to everyone is NOT the same as AMD being the first to make a x86 CPU with IMC.

The OP is much more informative than any other resource I've read on the topic.
Reminds me of the Mac vs Windows debate, back when every mac user was running around saying how microsoft just copied their idea. But they copied it off Xerox... It was less of a copy-cat and more of a natural evolution from existing ideas. Much like how AMD created 3DNow after MMX came out from Intel.

Cryslayer - apologies for accusing you of the IQ<60 thing, I didn't realise you were replying to a claim by yomma1. I didn't spot it.
 

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

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


Why are you posting in a "serious thread" if you have nothing "serious" to say?
 
actually uncfan, u guessed right but what i ws planning was that the whole mobo was a proc, and that u would just have to add RAM and gfx and other peripherals and u could get a mobocpu at different speeds

this would eliminate all complications about DDR2/3 RAM speeds and gfx PCI-e slots speeds.

then u would also find it easier to build as well as easier to OC
 


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.
 

Quote of the day.
I have peronal beliefs, and faith etc, but, I do question it/those things all the time, or Id have to have blind faith only, which doesnt lead to wisdom.
Having an open mind isnt bad, its good, too bad some people dont think so
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom