AMD's Official Response to Intel's HT Technology

[eden]

Ahh I see and yes, that was the thing I was looking for in CPU cheating.

--
If I could see the Matrix, I'd tell you I am only seeing 0s inside your head! :tongue:

 

[spud]

Gosh I thought AMD was a angel.

-Jeremy

<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=5341387" target="_new">Busting Sh@t Up!!!</A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm=1060900" target="_new">Busting More Sh@t Up!!!</A>

 

[vacs]

Now picture this: AMD having troubles with wide support for x86-64 code, without which its new A64 is just a "glorified and overpriced XP" (thanks for that quote, slvr_phoenix), and that probably will be the case for the rest of 2003, with 2004 looking a bit better. Intel is then ready to go 1066Mhz and DDR-II 533 by next year, if needed. Plus, Prescott can scale up to 4+ Ghz. And I'm ignoring the possibility that Yamhill (secret 64-bit instructions in Prescott, as a last resort) is actually a true rumor. Are you still so sure that A64 can kick the new Prescott P4's *ss, for the better part of 2003 and 2004? I wouldn't be. What do you guys think?

Correct, 64-bit won't matter this year. If AMD wants to beat Intel, their Athlon64 needs to be faster than any Pentium in 32-bit! If they don't achieve it than their 64-bit support can be as fast as they want but the Athlon64 will be failure for sure.

The Yamhill technology is indeed no longer a rumour. It has been confirmed that the Prescott core has been enhanced to support 64-bit like the Athlon64s but using a different architecture (not AMD64). But the Yamhill support won't be enabled on Prescotts, it will arrive later after a core change...

<A HREF="http://www.chip-architect.com/news/2003_04_20_Looking_at_Intels_Prescott_part2.html" target="_new">chip-architect</A>

Concerning AMD's statement that their CPUs are faster than Intel's with HT support is as pathetic as it gets. Using outdated benchies for an obsolete rating system and then trying to convince the world that HT is something like a simple clockspeed increase shows that AMD is really struggling for the time being. HT can be extremely effective when the software is optimized for it and there is no denial possible that HT's importance and need in the CPU sector will grow every day. (It's comparable to hardware T&L invention, most people don't know that it exists because every graphiccard supports it, but without hw T&L, games like HL2 and Doom3 would come out in 2008 and not in 2003/2004.)

 

[Hasse]

Yeah... we all did... Amd was the Angel, come to duel the mighty Intel devil. And they did won, a time back, but lately AMD's done the same thing we all loathed Intel for doing, playing the users for fools. AMD's been stringing along their fans by making up funky numbers on their processors trying to ramp up sales by stating that a 3200+ processor is equivalent to an intel P4 3.2ghz, and for the unknowing user, they think it for real. Where as the real world benchmarks show the xp3200+ just above the 2.6ghz and mostly beneath the 2.8ghz P4. AMD have rested too long, going with the stream. Besides someone earlier stated that they've never been disapointed over an AMD system, but with an Intel. The reverse is for me, but I own 2 AMD systems none the less, I don't care who's worse than who. The fact is that AMD is no worse than Intel and vica versa. AMD will do the same "bad" things as Intel does, unfortunately it makes us unable to trust any of them. Regardin the Opteron numbers, it's not quite the good stuff that everyone were told it was, same with Itanium. When are they going to learn? Never, never never never never. As long as there's only 2 contenstants for the crown, there'll come heaven and hell before either one behaves. But I just wish AMD would release a new processor that could compete with Intel's P4. In Norway where I'm from, AMD is more expensive than Intel ... Go figure, less performance for more money?!?!?!?.. Makes no sense, but it used to be that way with Intel, now it's AMD. And the charts that spurred this discussion is the same that Intel released on it's P3 launch, when AMD was shuffeling K7 processors. Nothings changed, nothing is going to change. Damn, we need Cyrix back up and running (not that their current cpu's is in any way good enough to compete with either AMD or Intel) with a revolutionary new CPU, or better even a completely new player in the market..... But I guess the costs of doing such a feat is not worth it, or?...

HRD

 

[spud]

What the heck is wrong with the Itainium that chip is godly in FPU calc's. It destroys everything out there some as much as 2 to 3 times. Integers its not so hot at, but thats changeing with the I3.

-Jeremy

<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=5341387" target="_new">Busting Sh@t Up!!!</A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm=1060900" target="_new">Busting More Sh@t Up!!!</A>

 

[HardWareBoss]

Not from you when it comes from AMD. I know how your a big fan of AMD PR right? LOL{cool}

 

[dwellman]

... and good chipsets that support it (right NOW). (Mephistopheles, 06/22/03)

I would tend to agree with these comments, specifically.

That is the primary thing that always irked me about Intel vs AMD: memory and HDD throughput. Intel chipsets easily acheive ~25% to 75% (in Sandra. 24%-63% in PC Mark 2002) better memory performance and a somewhat less stellar percent increase in HDD performance using standard, on-board IDE controllers.

I cannot think of a logical reason for that discrepancy, other than legal constraints, such as pantents. Otherwise, it means that Intel's chipset designers and engineers are better than anyone elses.

Also:

AMD's been stringing along their fans by making up funky numbers on their processors trying to ramp up sales by stating that a 3200+ processor is equivalent to an intel P4 3.2ghz.... (hasse, 06/23/03)

If Intel chipsets performed as badly, or, conversly, AMD chipsets performed as well as Intel's, perhaps a 3200+ WOULD come a lot closer to the peformance of a P4 3.2

Regards,

Dave

Intel giveth and Microsoft taketh away.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by dwellman on 06/24/03 09:35 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[slvr_phoenix]

This conversation is going great so far. I don't think I even have anything to add.

:O

Well ... other than one minor suggestion. 😉

Black_Cat, nvidiate was great. But in light of <A HREF="http://www.amdzone.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1296" target="_new">this</A> I think that the term might have to be re-coined something like <i>Appleate</i>. (Not to be confused with appellate, which is something entirely different. Heh heh.) I don't think that any company has gone to such extreme lengths to stretch the truth than Apple. I'm amazed that to this day they haven't been sued into nonexistence by both their competition and their customers.

"<i>Yeah, if you treat them like equals, it'll only encourage them to think they <b>ARE</b> your equals.</i>" - Thief from <A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=030603" target="_new">8-Bit Theater</A>

 

[Mephistopheles]

is godly in FPU calc's

Exactly. I am very interested in the new Itanium (not for me, for the physics institute in which I work), which will be out within 6 days. Hopefully, we'll see something on that. The current Itanium (1Ghz) is godly in FP ops, so what about a 1.5Ghz Itanium with more cache and revised architecture? 😎

 

[dwellman]

FastStream64 Technology
VIA FastStream64™ Technology uses an expanded array of prefetch buffers to reduce latency in the memory controller, extending performance at a lower transistor cost than dual channel implementations. With a 266/333/400MHz processor bus and supporting DDR266/333/400 memory, the VIA Apollo KT600 provides lightning fast access to system memory and can reach a peak bandwidth of 3.2GB/sec, enabling the full performance potential of the fastest AMD Athlon™ XP processors to be harnessed.

If only it were true.

<A HREF="http://www.via.com.tw/en/apollo/kt600.jsp" target="_new">http://www.via.com.tw/en/apollo/kt600.jsp</A>


Intel giveth and Microsoft taketh away.