AMD vs. Intel: Refuting Historical Inaccuracies

Page 15 - 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.
If the swing was 8-9 billion dollars, ATI would have been paid for, money on a new fab would have been there etc.
Thats reasonable amounts, tho it could have gone even higher, being that Intel had nothing competitive to offer at the time.
Its easy to draw a conclusion about whats happened without the fairness involved, as it is today, much harder to claim certainties of what might have been, but, like usual, its always harder to prove innocence than guilt.
What Elmo is doing here is a service for everyone, and needs to be listened to and practiced by all.
Comments about results after years of illegal activities without even a mention isnt the whole story, and is inaccurate.
Like they say, its not that the devil completely lied, he told part of the truth, and no Im not pointing fingers here, but dont exclude the past as we are just learning about it
 
I do think ATi was a wise purchase though, especially since nVidia seems to be struggling (we had a G84 GPU attack yesterday at work heh wasn't impressed).

elmo - good post
 


Ah I see that you are still pretending that I am somehow claiming the "fact" you mentioned is incorrect. Not surprising since it is the ONLY thing you have to hang on to.

Guess what? I'm not going to just accept your opinion that YOU think it is somehow important. And the problem is that you have now turned to inflammatory comments and name calling because you somehow think that make you "correct". Perhaps that might work against somebody else. It will never make me accept your opinion that it is important. Because it is NOT important.

You keep going off on diatribes about things that make no difference at all. But yet somehow you pat yourself on the back and honestly believe you somehow must have a superior intellect. This makes me feel sorry for you. You have become completely lost in things that do not matter.

Okay. Enjoy being correct. I am laughing at your superior intellect. (Well okay the fact that you don't have a clue does also come into play.)

As for you not being a fanboy... yeah... in your dreams Mr. Intel Fanboy. Apparently you don't really understand psychology very much. You keep repeating that you are not a fanboy. It has become a mantra. Something for you to hold on to. You call me delusional. You do realize that something else that is common in psychology is the fact that you label people with things that you know to be true about yourself? It is very clear. You are definitely worried that people are going to perceive you as a "fanboy". Stop worrying and accept the fact. You are a fanboy and claiming you aren't only reinforces the fact. In addition you can stop claiming others are delusional because it has become readily apparent that you fit that you readily fit that description also.

Sorry to point out these little issues but you need to accept the fact that not everybody will blindly accept your opinion. Even if you preface it with an indisputable fact. It won't work with people that don't drink the same fanboy kool-aid that you drink Mr. Intel Fanboy.
 


AMD doesn't have a single IMC for that. Its their current DDR2 IMC with a DDR3 IMC next to it. Not really special. They had to do it because if they had to migrate to AM3 like they did from S939 to AM2 it would have had a backlash on the "upgrade ability" AMD crowd.



You don't really care but just want to hate Intel huh? Because if you even read the OP you would understand it....



Or he just felt like venting it a bit. I understand. Nothing wrong with that and still he did it in a nice way that was informative.

Its just some people don't want to take it as they are, and thats facts. They want to argue or try to dispute them.

It was a nice thread until then....



He just means first x86 IMC. Anything outside that tends to not exist here.

:kaola:



Lol. BTW I went there for fun and found this post:

rak:

Ever since Intel lauch of Lynnfield with dual channel DDR-3 IMC, practically every review shows its integrated memory controller is showing more performing when compared to AMD IMC in K10. Sandra score for Intel IMC is around 17 GB/s and for AMD IMC its 13 GB/s, Everest and other memory testing program also follow this trend. I know AMD chips are not bandwidth starved but it is always nice to have some extra BW. I am wondering if dual nature of AMD IMC is limiting its DDR-3 performance as unlike Intel IMC which only support DDR-3, AMD IMC on K10 support both DDR-2 and DDR-3. Or perhaps Intel implement better prefatch mechanism for its IMC than what AMD IMC have. Can we expect better DDR-3 performace with upcoming new C3 stepping. Any comments will be welcomed.
Click to expand...

First response:

JF-AMD

If you do the math you see that one is ~33% faster than the other and one has 33% more channels. This is all logical.

The real question, for desktop users, is how does this matter? In benchmarks, where you can fill all the memory channels, you can see a difference.

But how does that impact day to day apps?

My car has a speedometer to that goes to 180. Pretty sure I could get it to 130+ based on some interesting data points that the austin police department might not approve of.

But when I drive to work, I really can't get it above 60.

Are you worried about maximum effifiency or maximum throughput. Efficeincy impacts how your programs run, but on a desktop maximum throughput is only an issue if you are regularly saturating the bus. And most people aren't on their desktops as far as I know
Click to expand...

Notice I bolded Lynnfield. He was asking why Lynfield based Intel CPUs get 17GB/s memory bandwidth (Lynnfield is dual channel DDR3) and Phenom II gets only 13GB/s (also dual channel DDR3).

The response was "33% faster 33% more channels". That's a Nehealem based Core i7.

Second was him stating it was useless except in synthetic benchmarks. But wait wasn't it during the Core 2s first days that that was touted by AMD fans?

Sorry but I have to laugh at it. Its funny to watch my main points. Certain fans grasp and jump around the issues and even go as far as to change their ideals to support their preferred company.



You don't know keith. he twists everything. it gets annoying. His views may not be incorrect but he completely changed the subject, went back to the original one and continues to argue that Intel "abandoned" the IMC when evidence shows that Intel used it in multiple mainstream products and has in XScale for years (since 2000) which is a mainstream product. They just tried a different road first (Netbust) and it didn't work so they went back. Happens to everyone.

BTW Elmo here is a post by Keith from AMDzone just so you know what you are getting into:

Get used to the following types of posts: (Here and on other forums.)

"Why are they picking on Intel... it's a free market. The government should leave Intel alone." (As if.)

"But AMD couldn't make enough chips; they were at full capacity... so they couldn't have gained any more market share." (Are people really that stupid? Don't answer that -- it's rhetorical.)

"I don't understand why this is happening to Intel because the i7 is clearly superior to the Phenom." (Well except for when it's not. Which is anytime an application can't benefit from SMT or Dynamic clocks.)

"This won't help AMD. Intel will still have the performance crown." (I guess if they have the performance "crown" they can't be guilty. Besides having the "crown" means about as much as having a zit.)


==========================
Did I forget any?
==========================

BTW: It has come to my attention that if I post here and also post 500% as much on another forum... that means that this is my "home". (Yeah they aren't really known for being logical are they.)
Phenom II 940 (CACVC 0849GPAW) & Zalman 9700, 3xATI4850 in XFire, 2 RaptorX on Highpoint 3120 Raid0, Gigabyte MA790GP-UD4H, Mushkin 8500 2x2G, Corsair HX1000W, Xaser VI
Click to expand...

Huh.

Also like how pretty much everyone there has AMD + ATI. Of course before ATI was bought it could have been a mix. Guess they have no real choice but follow AMD.
 


Yeah... it is so annoying that somebody actually points out minor facts that you don't like to have mentioned.

Intel created an IMC so they wouldn't need to bother with chipsets in some dedicated processors. They abandoned the technology for years in their mainstream processors. This means exactly what to me? Oh yeah... it means nothing except for the fact that what I've been saying is actually true.

AND either that is true OR you must accept the alternative: If they didn't abandon the technology that means that they shoved out old technology that they knew they would replace.

SO either they didn't accept it for mainstream and abandoned it OR they went down the rosy path making people believe it wasn't important so they could sell chips. But then flip-flopping when they got around to perfecting it.

Either choice will be not be palatable for you Intel fanboys. Bon Appetit!

EDIT: Oh I'm so sorry. That is all my unproven opinion. Of course it is all supported by what actually happened... but go ahead and add some spin and try to warp it into your reality so you don't choke on it.
 
My whole problem here is, the downplaying of AMDs usage of its IMC then, like now, and we didnt "need" that much BW on the DT.
Now, we have tri channel, and whos actually using that here with great effect?















Crickets chirping












Anyone?
 
Um sure. Whatever. I find your posts about as useful to read as the WSJ and thats not very much.

Every last one is basically your opinion, you have yet to once post any sort of fact except your own and what I posted above is a obvious showing of your hate towards Intel no matter what.

Even if it is superior and proven by multiple sites........ oh I forget they are paid and the benchmarks are all rigged.

Well that concludes it for me. Enjoy your fact twisting.
 
Sorry, but my laziness prevails here, and Im not going to dig thru all the responses, but, putting things in hysterical perspective, I'll just say what was said then as well
i7 isnt powerful enough to actually use all that BW, and does it no good on DT

Look, this is all good, we can go back and find out who actually made what, when it was made, used, stopped, hinted at use, whatever, this is good for those who really care about it.
Intel is using it now, and if not for their illegal activities, its possible AMDs implementation of its IMC could still be superior, but because of cheating, law breaking and down right dirty handedness, we will never know, so, any "claims" made by Intel frfom that period onwards comes with an asterisk in my book, because the people working on these things just may have ended up with AMD
 


There as no downplay on AMDs use of it. Just showing that in fact for x86 Intel did have mainstream CPUs with it before but as always TRIED something new. What was the last new thing AMD tried? K8. K10/10.5 is pretty much K8 with improvements, faster HTT and a DDR3 (K10.5) IMC.

Inteel went the FSB route, tried a quad pumped FSB, tried to switch us to true 64bit but AMD stuck us with x86-64 YAY!!!! Intel had multiple tries with the IMC, but who was to say that it would have been better. What if Intels quad pumped FSB was better but they ditched it to go IMC? Or any other idea intel had.

When it comes to technology and science, you have to try everything once. There is never a "wrong" only something new that may be worse or better. The FSB turned out to be worse so Intel started to put a IMC together from what they already had only putting DDR3 instead.
 
OK, I said back then, which was commonly used back in the day.
I also said here, as in DT usage as well.
I agree for certain rare scientific usages, Im sure its being used, but to bang that drum as loudly as its being done around here is as deafening as the response to my question in context.
 
To me, everyone was on Intellrhoids back then, and will have that asterisk in place. And just to be fair, some decisions made by H.R. could have been made to feather his wallet as well, which obviously wouldnt/did not help
 
All I am saying is this:

Intel had the first x86 IMC

AMD made it more mainstream

Intel wanted to try something else. It failed.

AMD thus far hasn't.

Edison tried 3000 ways to make a light bulb. Only one worked. Nothing wrong with trying for something better.
 
My frustrations here are, having more channels, more cores arent moving us forwards, and my hoping of gpgpu usage hopefully wont go this route as well.
It could mean a slowing down of progress, and who wants that?
Anyways, getting OT here.
It only makes sense that each company ends up using the currently best way to achieve BW on cpus, and whoever invented it, and originally used it, AMD was the ones making it a true success, where Intel powered their way thru using the FSB, eventually going back to it, as it is the best way.
 
Hah, this was a great read.

Awesome job by Elmo trying to explain concepts no more complicated than 1+1 = 2 and the Earth is not flat, yet Keith and Jenny were too obsessed with waiting by the phone for AMD to ring them to tell them that they love them and that love between a human and a semiconductor company is possible, that they were incapable of understanding simple and straight forward matters.
 


Hi Mousemonkey. I saw your little remark about my own small contribution Ccleaner-wise. Apparently the thread is closed now - which makes me wonder how we were both able to say anything at all. But this is what I say to you, in regard of that:

After nearly two years do you think they'll care?
Click to expand...

To be quite frank, mousemonkey, I don't care if they care. Sitting here caring about whether they care or not is highly unlikely to bring me (or you) anywhere nearer the worthwhile goal of simply suggesting a small improvement, and the doing of which will take about five minutes. You yourself, instead of writing a smarmy little put-down, could have probably written something and sent it off yourself.

Don't waste my time with rubbish like this, in future. Okay? Got it?
 
first of all that is no way to talk to a mod, u are new to this forum and u need to learn to talk to people kindly instead of talking trash and absolute crap i already don't believe u, cuz if the way u are talking

So don't waste our time with rubbish like this, ever in the future. okay? got it? good, now get out


anyway, i would like to know why this thread isn't deleted like mine, this thread is way more troll like than my thread was


the mods here are starting to get on my nerves, especially the one i suspect to be the person who deleted my neutral thread
 
Sounds like he (hinteregions) resurrected a 2 year old thread, perhaps. Sometimes they close those a little roughly, but don't take it personally, just be careful to not do that in the future.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom