Why can't Intel say they beat AMD with something on the market today? This is all reminiscent of professional wrestling. "I'm gonna do this to you." I'm gonna do that to you." OK then shut up already and do it. Right now all you're doing is flexing your muscles at the camera.
Intel has plenty of theoretical solutions to AMD's current dominance. I'll believe it when I see it. Show me what you have today. Like I said in another thread, AMD today controls the ball and the clock (football reference). They have been slow to deliver new technology because they are already in the lead. It's more profitable to set the pace from convenience rather than necessity. If Intel drops a bomb on them, you can expect a swift retaliation, just like the last few times. I'm talking past experience here, not wishful thinking.
I actually hope Intel does catch up. I want to see a fierce fight between these two (and maybe a third company) that lasts for a decade. It will accellerate technology and drive prices down. It's in the best interest of the consumer. But a tech war means thin profit margins for both companies. It is not in their best interests to do this. They each want to have an unassailable domination of the market with the other companies eating scraps from the table. Then they can increase profit margins to the moon and watch the money come in. Intel did this for years.
But you can't have two companies enjoying this position. There can be only one, or in the case of a tech war, none.
Right now AMD is dominant, but not unassailable. Intel is in an expensive tech war while AMD is not. But the better Intel's chips do, the closer AMD comes to entering the tech war. Competition is a good thing.
Intel has plenty of theoretical solutions to AMD's current dominance. I'll believe it when I see it. Show me what you have today. Like I said in another thread, AMD today controls the ball and the clock (football reference). They have been slow to deliver new technology because they are already in the lead. It's more profitable to set the pace from convenience rather than necessity. If Intel drops a bomb on them, you can expect a swift retaliation, just like the last few times. I'm talking past experience here, not wishful thinking.
I actually hope Intel does catch up. I want to see a fierce fight between these two (and maybe a third company) that lasts for a decade. It will accellerate technology and drive prices down. It's in the best interest of the consumer. But a tech war means thin profit margins for both companies. It is not in their best interests to do this. They each want to have an unassailable domination of the market with the other companies eating scraps from the table. Then they can increase profit margins to the moon and watch the money come in. Intel did this for years.
But you can't have two companies enjoying this position. There can be only one, or in the case of a tech war, none.
Right now AMD is dominant, but not unassailable. Intel is in an expensive tech war while AMD is not. But the better Intel's chips do, the closer AMD comes to entering the tech war. Competition is a good thing.
Ycon
Distinguished
- Feb 1, 2006
- 1,359
- 0
- 19,280
Cause it wasnt.
I had like 7-10 LANs (dont remember the exact number) since I bought my P4 530 and none of my mates CPUs (3000+, 3200+, (Sempron 2800+), MT-37) was able to offer competition, which leaves me with the conclusion that HT simply is too powerful for any non-HT CPU to beat.
I had like 7-10 LANs (dont remember the exact number) since I bought my P4 530 and none of my mates CPUs (3000+, 3200+, (Sempron 2800+), MT-37) was able to offer competition, which leaves me with the conclusion that HT simply is too powerful for any non-HT CPU to beat.
luminaris
Distinguished
- Dec 20, 2005
- 1,361
- 0
- 19,280
Well, as I've said man, its gonna be a rough ride for AMD IMO because, even if it's true that Intel beats AMD by 40%, there is no way AMD is going to be able to squeeze the necessary 41% out of its current technology to level the playing field. Its just not possible IMO.
AMD has AM2 coming yes, they will have the ability to use higher speed memory, yes but, that IMO, will not make up enough ground.
AMD has AM2 coming yes, they will have the ability to use higher speed memory, yes but, that IMO, will not make up enough ground.
This Forum is like Jerry Springer!What about the P4 Pre-production benchmarks? They promised it would put AMD under the ground permanently.
Anyone remember the "Hammer" pre-production benchmarks? They claimed they beat Intel's best by something like 70%.
I don't have time to find any of the above right now, but if someone does, that'd be great. It'd do a lot of people good (both sides) to look at the pre-production benchmarks produced by the manufacturer vs. the real-world benchmarks that occur today.
ANY benchmarks put out by a manufacturer are going to be Skewed - period. They will tweak the systems if they can get away with it, they will run as many benchmarks as they can find so they can take the ones from each category that make their product look best, they will talk all day about "Giving the other guy the advantage by overclocking" or "Giving them better hardware" to prove how Honest their benchmarks are.
Both of them are a lot like Used Car Salesmen in this respect.
Wait for the real-world benchmarks - everything else until then is just FUD and maneuvering.
Also to remember: Intel is great at releasing paper processors. I'll believe this "wonder of all wonders" when I see it on the shelf at the local dealer.
IDEV
Anyone remember the "Hammer" pre-production benchmarks? They claimed they beat Intel's best by something like 70%.
I don't have time to find any of the above right now, but if someone does, that'd be great. It'd do a lot of people good (both sides) to look at the pre-production benchmarks produced by the manufacturer vs. the real-world benchmarks that occur today.
ANY benchmarks put out by a manufacturer are going to be Skewed - period. They will tweak the systems if they can get away with it, they will run as many benchmarks as they can find so they can take the ones from each category that make their product look best, they will talk all day about "Giving the other guy the advantage by overclocking" or "Giving them better hardware" to prove how Honest their benchmarks are.
Both of them are a lot like Used Car Salesmen in this respect.
Wait for the real-world benchmarks - everything else until then is just FUD and maneuvering.
Also to remember: Intel is great at releasing paper processors. I'll believe this "wonder of all wonders" when I see it on the shelf at the local dealer.
IDEV
luminaris
Distinguished
- Dec 20, 2005
- 1,361
- 0
- 19,280
LOL
You bring much to the table man. :lol:
I for one would actually like to see it happen myself and it will drive the competition.
The thing that gets me is, why is everybody fighting so much over these two processor brands anyway? If you can game on both and one or the other satisfy your needs, why bother? Just a thought ...
You bring much to the table man. :lol:
I for one would actually like to see it happen myself and it will drive the competition.
The thing that gets me is, why is everybody fighting so much over these two processor brands anyway? If you can game on both and one or the other satisfy your needs, why bother? Just a thought ...
If AM2 comes out 40% better than a 2.8ghx X2 I will lick the toe jam out of your toes.
I do not want to see AMD dead. I want better products, and better prices. A $529 chip KOed a $1000 one.
FX60 will be worth ~$200-$250 soon. 😀
Gee, 100 posts. Most of them good too. You, my friend my be a posting fool, but still a fool.
rochin
Distinguished
- Feb 9, 2006
- 210
- 0
- 18,680
It already has been stated that the new AMD chipset will be able to use ddr2. For being up AMDs ass past your ankles you should know that. And you have already proven to the forum in the past that you do not know what the hell you are talking about. The new Intel chips are going to be good, but without AMD there would be no reason for Intel to come up with anything new. I too am tired of the AMD fanboys jumping in and flaming when people are trying to have a nice chat. On these and other forums soneone will want to build an Intel system and the first 4 replies are by the AMD fanboys saying Intel sucks. Dvdpiddy is one of the best/worst of these. Your opnion matters yes, but we already know what your gong to say about Intel so STFU.
captaincharisma
Glorious
- Oct 13, 2004
- 10,959
- 76
- 45,290
3Ball
Distinguished
- Mar 1, 2006
- 1,736
- 0
- 19,790
FITCamaro makes me happy on the inside, I also went from AMD Athlon XP 2600+ to a 2.8ghz Intel with 800mhz FSB and couldnt have been happier about the switch...years later got P4 660 didnt see enough so I got the A64 3700+ Sandy and love it as well. I will most likely wait till a revision or two of the conroe, souly because I think my 3700+ still has alil juice left in it. The fact of this whole thing is, P4 is older than A64 and thats why I have an A64, when I get conroe it will be because it is newer and better than my A64...(if it trully is better that is, wont know till it releases, but w/e). The only thing that I trully enjoy from one company over the other...IMO of course is that I believe that Intel motherboards I. E. chipsets are better...work better for me...dont want to make anyone mad by the statement I just like the fact that they are Intel chipsets and not 3rd party. Overall, I love the AMD / Intel wars...they amuse me, so please keep fighting so that both companies will continue to try and win your loyalty, while I reap the benefit of potential lower prices and possibly better products!!!
Antec NeoHE 550w PS
DFI Lan Party UT NF4 Ultra
AMD Athlon 3700+ Sandy @ 2.8ghz (10x280) - "Arctic Freezer 64"
2gb (2x1gb) Patriot Performance Memory (2-3-2-5)
ATI Original X1900XT
Creative XF-I
(2x120gb WD SATA II HD's) - Raid 0
Antec NeoHE 550w PS
DFI Lan Party UT NF4 Ultra
AMD Athlon 3700+ Sandy @ 2.8ghz (10x280) - "Arctic Freezer 64"
2gb (2x1gb) Patriot Performance Memory (2-3-2-5)
ATI Original X1900XT
Creative XF-I
(2x120gb WD SATA II HD's) - Raid 0
Hi everyone
i was just going throu the tomshardware CPU charts.
In "fx-60 vs conroe" benchmark for Unreal Tournament: it shows 160.4 fps
But in tomshardware so called "CPU Charts" (http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=328&model2=212&chart=71) it shows that fx-60 is getting 174fps...
thats a different of like 14fps.... not to say fx-57 is: 189.1fps (conroe is still faster)
How come the results are sooo offf....
i was just going throu the tomshardware CPU charts.
In "fx-60 vs conroe" benchmark for Unreal Tournament: it shows 160.4 fps
But in tomshardware so called "CPU Charts" (http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=328&model2=212&chart=71) it shows that fx-60 is getting 174fps...
thats a different of like 14fps.... not to say fx-57 is: 189.1fps (conroe is still faster)
How come the results are sooo offf....
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
AMD Ryzen 9 9950X vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285K Faceoff — it isn't even close- Started by Admin
- Replies: 51
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
WHAT'S UP ? with this ~ Bio's & CMOS - Clearing of Passwords ?
- Started by TechofManyYears
- Replies: 11
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram