AMD vs. Intel: Refuting Historical Inaccuracies

[SpidersWeb]

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.

I really don't know. It struck me as odd, but they're researching and developing other things as well.
So I'm just going to see what becomes of it. I guess with the profit they've been making, they've been able to span out. The improvement on their new IGP is quite impressive from the engineering sample benches I've seen, gone from crippled 3D performance right up to comparable with the 785G. While the ATi is ahead, that's still a huge improvement over the GM4500. So who knows, maybe they learned how to draw pictures?

In other news, co-workers laptop died today, turns out it has the famous nVidia G84 graphics chip, also with my dead nForce IGP at home... reputation pretty much out the window with nVidia IGP for me.

ATi's still seem to be the best for IGP (and I'd expect it to be this way for a while yet).
Although I'm totally unaware of why we're discussing IGP again.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

LRB allows for Intel to make 2 chips, both adaptable, 1 for general cpu usage, the other for gpgpu usage, with each being scalable, especially LRB, and having this tech will be important down the road, as for PC gaming, the juries still out, but most expect LRB to be a top or near top performer in gpgpu

 

[keithlm]

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".

The original "native" AMD quad core design was not a failure as you are so quick to advocate in your post. It might not have been as successful as the company would have hoped but it was far from a failure. In truth AMD released a native quad core that was generally fairly close to the speed of the older Intel chips when compared clock per clock. That is actually pretty good engineering considering they released a brand new architecture to compete with an older architecture that had been through several steppings.

But of course you and your ilk don't like somebody pointing that out since it ruins your main point and makes the rest of your post useless. But that's okay because anyone that would accept your logic without considering the facts would not be extremely intelligent. (As the original poster has attempted to mention. Of course he probably didn't want his own logic used against him but oh well.) You and other "unbiased" posters might want to pretend that you live in a different reality because you are ego involved, but that doesn't actually change the truth.

AND: what really gets you guys angry is that many people won't blindly share your opinions. That really makes you crazy. You can't and won't concede that people analyze benchmarks and can come up with completely different conclusions; what some people call "destroying", "smoking", "pwning", etc. is viewed by many people as actually being basically the same result. But you don't see it that way and so you must attempt to force your opinion on everyone else. Therefore you and your horde of "unbiased" posters attempt to deride and ridicule anyone that doesn't join your club and completely agree with your opinions. It's actually pretty sad. But it does provide hours of enjoyment wondering what kind of tripe you guys are going to come up with next.

 

[chowmanga]

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.

Intel is pursuing larrabee because they're anticipating the direction computing is heading. Just as fermi is taking a step in the direction of general computing with massive parallelism, lrb will implement x86 as a massively parallel isa. The next huge step in computing is... beyond me.

 

[yomamafor1]

The original "native" AMD quad core design was not a failure as you are so quick to advocate in your post. It might not have been as successful as the company would have hoped but it was far from a failure. In truth AMD released a native quad core that was generally fairly close to the speed of the older Intel chips when compared clock per clock. That is actually pretty good engineering considering they released a brand new architecture to compete with an older architecture that had been through several steppings.

What exactly do you mean...fairly close?

But of course you and your ilk don't like somebody pointing that out since it ruins your main point and makes the rest of your post useless. But that's okay because anyone that would accept your logic without considering the facts would not be extremely intelligent. (As the original poster has attempted to mention. Of course he probably didn't want his own logic used against him but oh well.) You and other "unbiased" posters might want to pretend that you live in a different reality because you are ego involved, but that doesn't actually change the truth.

AND: what really gets you guys angry is that many people won't blindly share your opinions. That really makes you crazy. You can't and won't concede that people analyze benchmarks and can come up with completely different conclusions; what some people call "destroying", "smoking", "pwning", etc. is viewed by many people as actually being basically the same result. But you don't see it that way and so you must attempt to force your opinion on everyone else. Therefore you and your horde of "unbiased" posters attempt to deride and ridicule anyone that doesn't join your club and completely agree with your opinions. It's actually pretty sad. But it does provide hours of enjoyment wondering what kind of tripe you guys are going to come up with next.

I think you just summed up quite nicely why people with logic sense don't post in AMDzone regularly anymore.

 

[yomamafor1]

Only thing is, Intels "fusion" wont be what they really are trying to do, nor will/should have in 20011 or so, so its a halfbaked scenario, or, itll be in trouble by 2011 or so

I think its still too early to be making this kind of speculation. After all, from most of the software developers I've talked to, they're pretty damn excited about Larabee.

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.

The same reason why Nvidia and AMD are both pushing for GPGPU computing.

 

[amnotanoobie]

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.

Probably also a self-pride kind of thing. Also architecture wise, they'd probably fall near into the design of nvidia or ati, which would probably require licensing which means more money comes out. With a self-made architecture, they could take any direction they want and they'd also probably own the patents.

It is quite impossible for intel to acquire nvidia at any point because 2 big egos really don't work well together.

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

The original "native" AMD quad core design was not a failure as you are so quick to advocate in your post. It might not have been as successful as the company would have hoped but it was far from a failure. In truth AMD released a native quad core that was generally fairly close to the speed of the older Intel chips when compared clock per clock. That is actually pretty good engineering considering they released a brand new architecture to compete with an older architecture that had been through several steppings.

In my mind it was a failure for AMD. Yes, for many it was a good product to buy, but for the company it was a failure.

- AMD's response to Intel's quad core was a year late and significantly slower than Intel's original product released a year before
- Yield issues affected profitablitly
- The Core 2 launch and the Barcelona response are in my mind the two biggest factors to AMD's fall from grace and profitability


But I do see Keith's point, that if you think of it from the consumer standpoint it wasn't a failure, and that I could totally agree with.

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

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.

You are correct that someone else said it first. I didn't catch that, as I don't always have time to read every word. As such, my apologies to Cryslayer80.

You can't say much about ganging up on people since you guys do the same thing at AMDZone, the only difference is that at AMDZone the dissenting opinion gets banned, while at Tom's you're allowed to disagree and speak your opinion (thank you moderators).

 

[Cryslayer80]

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.

Apology not needed, but I will use this moment to apologize to everyone for my periodic BS. Well, I still have my own opinion and I will not change it, but there is no need for BS. I have explained my opinion a thousand times and that is why I post no evidence (I am tired of it). I just get super angered by statements like these:

Technology Coordinator's sarcastic "funny" anti Intel posts are super boring, and all of my posts about "AMD evil" had the intention to provoke his reaction.
Claiming blidnly that Intel is on top in everything without looking objectively at the price/performance and the actual performance in things people do (not in synthetics).
And so on...

 

[Cryslayer80]

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


Why are you posting in a "serious thread" if you have nothing "serious" to say?

Okay... INTEL FTW! TOM'S FTW. AMD DOOOWN... Sorry, had to 😛 That is my last un-serious post 😀

 

[Worf101]

Well after the surfing this thread the one thing that's obvious to me is thta the OP really has a beef with guys over at AMDZone. I guess he posted over there, got the ban hammer and came here to pick a fight, fine. I'm a Ford lover, I've a 1956 Ford Thunderbird sitting in my garage, I DON"T take it to Chevy or Mopar shows. I don't go round looking for a fight, I'd probably find it. Back in the 50's the saying was "Ford sold safety, Chevy sold cars". And they were right. GM had Ford beat 6 ways to Sunday in style, horspower, sales, you name it. But that didn't stop people from buying and running Fords. You love what you love. But things change over time, look at both company's today. Still I don't expect people to stop buying Chevy's

AMD, for a moment was on top, Ruiz and Co. along with the Intel Black Bag Group, ruined a good thing, now Intel's top dog. But as my Dad said "fightin' is in rounds". Just because Intel's offerings are faster and more powerful doesn't mean that AMD's product line is total crap and people aren't buying them at all or that they can't regain some measure of technological parity, just takes time is all.

Da Worfster

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

Claiming blidnly that Intel is on top in everything without looking objectively at the price/performance and the actual performance in things people do (not in synthetics).
And so on...

We weren't doing that though.

In many of my posts I acknowledge that for many people AMD would be a great choice because people don't typically spend +$250 USD on a processor.

The main hang-up that I think we had is that you're of the mindframe that buying as $1,000 is always foolish, and that I'm of the mindframe that there are some expections.

By the way, Intel's top end does have real-world benefits. Like you, I also thumb my nose to synthetic benchmarks.

I think one thing that might help you CrySlayer is to see that sometime we're not always completely disagreeing with you. In most of my posts in this thread I tried to disagree with you on one point, but show that I also agreed with you on another.


I think everyone involved (meaning more than just Cryslayer) could benefit from toning down the arguments a little bit. I don't think we go too far out of hand, but it did get a little "heated".

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

Well after the surfing this thread the one thing that's obvious to me is thta the OP really has a beef with guys over at AMDZone. I guess he posted over there, got the ban hammer and came here to pick a fight, fine. I'm a Ford lover, I've a 1956 Ford Thunderbird sitting in my garage, I DON"T take it to Chevy or Mopar shows. I don't go round looking for a fight, I'd probably find it. Back in the 50's the saying was "Ford sold safety, Chevy sold cars". And they were right. GM had Ford beat 6 ways to Sunday in style, horspower, sales, you name it. But that didn't stop people from buying and running Fords. You love what you love. But things change over time, look at both company's today. Still I don't expect people to stop buying Chevy's

AMD, for a moment was on top, Ruiz and Co. along with the Intel Black Bag Group, ruined a good thing, now Intel's top dog. But as my Dad said "fightin' is in rounds". Just because Intel's offerings are faster and more powerful doesn't mean that AMD's product line is total crap and people aren't buying them at all or that they can't regain some measure of technological parity, just takes time is all.

Da Worfster

But keep this in mind. We're accused of being a pro-intel discussion board. The AMD Fanboys, who post at a site called "AMDZone" come over here and try to push their biased views on us.

What's the difference?

They're allowed to speak here. While things may get a little bit heated, they are allowed to state their opinon.

At AMDZone, you're not allowed to speak. Once you've been identified as neutral or pro-Intel you are banned.


AMDZone is for regurgetating the same ideas over and over again. While this may happen at THG sometimes, it doesn't always happen. JennyH and others have changed my mind about a few things.

 

[Worf101]

But keep this in mind. We're accused of being a pro-intel discussion board. The AMD Fanboys, who post at a site called "AMDZone" come over here and try to push their biased views on us.

What's the difference?

They're allowed to speak here. While things may get a little bit heated, they are allowed to state their opinon.

At AMDZone, you're not allowed to speak. Once you've been identified as neutral or pro-Intel you are banned.


AMDZone is for regurgetating the same ideas over and over again. While this may happen at THG sometimes, it doesn't always happen. JennyH and others have changed my mind about a few things.

Well, as you can guess I've NEVER been to AMDZone, if they practice censorship over there, then they're doing themselves little good. My biggest problem with THIS forum has always been the "Hatfields' vs. McCoys" nature of the Intel vs. AMD threads. If you read my posting history you'll note that I never took part in it. The board was/is much better now than before but still, I don't look forward to going back to the days of flame and drain. I'd much prefer to discuss the merits and detriments of each company's offerings realizing that even if a chip isn't the fastest it might have some value in some segment of the market.

Da Worfster

 

[someguy7]

If Phenom was generally close to core2 clock for clock then netburst was generally close to k8 clock for clock.

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

I'd much prefer to discuss the merits and detriments of each company's offerings realizing that even if a chip isn't the fastest it might have some value in some segment of the market.

I agree with you. We're not saying that Intel is the only choice because they're faster. We're saying two things:



A) Intel and AMD both have great offerings in the budget segment

and

B) AMD does NOT have any offerings in the high-end CPU segment, as their fastest CPU can't keep up with Intel's best.





On point A) we're agreeing with the AMD Fanboys. However, the fanboys just can't bring themselves to admit point B), that Intel has a top end market presence, and that AMD does not. Inteling having a top-end doesn't discredit AMD's products in the low end, but it does hurt AMD as a company not to be able to bring in the big bucks for their top binning parts, which sell for only ~$250.

 

[keithlm]

What exactly do you mean...fairly close?

Let's review the graphs YOU posted: Two results that are tied and one that is a win for Intel. I can find a zip program that shows a tie result that isn't a clear win for Intel. All in all not bad for AMD when you consider that you posted results for chips that had the "OMG DOOM TLB" bug. And of course with the newer xx50 chips the results were even closer.

This EXACTLY illustrates my point. The fact that I can find a zip program that doesn't show a clear Intel win also illustrates something else which we don't need to go into at this time.

At AMDZone, you're not allowed to speak. Once you've been identified as neutral or pro-Intel you are banned.


AMDZone is for regurgetating the same ideas over and over again. While this may happen at THG sometimes, it doesn't always happen. JennyH and others have changed my mind about a few things.

Actually you are not correct in your little rant. People are allowed freedom until they start resorting to personal attacks and inflammatory posts. This usually happens when they immediately realize that not all people blindly subscribe to their beliefs. And it is generally not something that happens immediately. The person is given room to hang themselves.

(For example from what Yomama posted above: A score of 99 versus 104 is not a clear win in a comparative benchmark like some people desperately want you to believe. Or the other score of 285 vs 301 when lower is better. Personally I'd still call that a tie even though the Phenom is the one with the better score. But of course if the Intel had the better score the Intel people would say that it "totally smoked" the AMD. It's all perspective. In addition to all of that... you can actually tell somebody's intent when they post by the tone of their post. When they start being inflammatory in their first couple of posts they aren't really looking to have a discussion.)

Well after the surfing this thread the one thing that's obvious to me is thta the OP really has a beef with guys over at AMDZone.

BINGO. And of course he comes here and pretends he was just innocently posting. On this forum he doesn't mention that he started getting inflammatory.

 

[Cryslayer80]

Again, I must say I disagree. The first thing we disagree in is about market segments. I seriously believe $250 is not mainstream when the highest performing CPU is $280 (not counting I7 940+ of course). Second, I again say that I am confident that if AMD wanted to, they could release a $1000 CPU (but it is already late for that as AMD provided all the features Intel has in its $1000 CPUs in their $250 CPUs).

 

[Mousemonkey]

Well, as you can guess I've NEVER been to AMDZone, if they practice censorship over there, then they're doing themselves little good.

You should give it a view sometime, what I've noticed is how disjointed a lot of the threads are due to posts being deleted, thing is many times the deleted post has been quoted so you can get a feel for why the posts have been deleted and it's usually not because of insulting language or behaviour but simply because it does not toe the party line.

My biggest problem with THIS forum has always been the "Hatfields' vs. McCoys" nature of the Intel vs. AMD threads. If you read my posting history you'll note that I never took part in it. The board was/is much better now than before but still, I don't look forward to going back to the days of flame and drain. I'd much prefer to discuss the merits and detriments of each company's offerings realizing that even if a chip isn't the fastest it might have some value in some segment of the market.

Da Worfster

I for one will be doing my best to keep the debates civil and good natured, rest assured that I will not hesitate to wade in if things start getting out of hand but I will not delete posts or ban people just because they do not share my opinion.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

I wasnt refering to LRB, but your mention of Intels fusion, which isnt LRV, and youre right, its too early to pride up Intel on their early "fusion" and, if thats all they got, and no LRB, then theyll be in trouble. Got it now?
I agree, its still too early for LRB, but again, after it releases, itll be too late to say wait, it has to deliver

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

An easy way to tell how Intel leaning alot of people here are, is the immediate defence of Intels IGPs in many posts.
If ANY cpu company suffered accross the board as Intels IGPs have thruout the YEARS of their poor perf, thered be no contest.
But, since its Intel, it gets defended, to me thats a good gage on the fans leaning blue here

 

[keithlm]

You should give it a view sometime, what I've noticed is how disjointed a lot of the threads are due to posts being deleted, thing is many times the deleted post has been quoted so you can get a feel for why the posts have been deleted and it's usually not because of insulting language or behaviour but simply because it does not toe the party line.

Actually it's usually a bit more complex than that. On that forum they generally are more strict on making you stick to the thread's topic than you guys are on this forum. Plus you can't look at one of the posts and conclude that all of the person's posts were acceptable.

 

[yomamafor1]

Let's review the graphs YOU posted: Two results that are tied and one that is a win for Intel. I can find a zip program that shows a tie result that isn't a clear win for Intel. All in all not bad for AMD when you consider that you posted results for chips that had the "OMG DOOM TLB" bug. And of course with the newer xx50 chips the results were even closer.

This EXACTLY illustrates my point. The fact that I can find a zip program that doesn't show a clear Intel win also illustrates something else which we don't need to go into at this time.

I'm sorry, but where is the "tied" part? As far as I can tell, Phenom loses very badly to the 1 year old (at the time) Q6600, and even loses out to some dual cores.

So where is the tied part?

 

[Mousemonkey]

Actually it's usually a bit more complex than that. On that forum they generally are more strict on making you stick to the thread's topic than you guys are on this forum. Plus you can't look at one of the posts and conclude that all of the person's posts were acceptable.

I've been over there following a live thread and have seen posts disappear without the poster being banned and having seen said deleted post a few minuets prior I know that it just didn't fit in with the ANDzone collective opinion.