I see absolutely no reason to go Intel now

[P4Man]

OMG.. where to begin ? Its fairly obvious you are beyond reason and cluelessness..

>Hmm 50% of the top 10 motherboard manufacturers sold 60%
>-70%. Its unknown what the other players sold do your
>numbers are invalid.

Read the link. His talks with the other confirmed this number. But if you really believe Abit, Asus, MSI, ECS, etc would have *completely* different product mixes, go ahead and think it. I'm too lazy to hunt for links, but I do remember reading VIA owned over half the chipset business in those days. But if you think those quoted numbers did not worry intel or impact its chipset business.. well, what can I say ? Seek help.

>Well to be more specific VIA's CEO has been pestering Intel
>for a long time.

Hardly a reason not to buy their products.

>You said it yourself there was a complete machine move over
>form 32bit to 64bit

Hu ? I said what ? All I said AMD move to AMD64 is pretty much identical to the way MIPS, PA Risc, power and Sparc where extended from 32 to 64 bits. CPU's first, OS and apps later. Much of the software never migrated, nor will it ever.

>Reason being is when your running 32bit mode you can add
>64bit mode in as well, you can access those extra registers
>and gain the extra performance not inherit to 64bit but to
>the additional code being decoded/executed/and retired.

What the F are you talking about ? The extra registers have nothing to do with "64 bit". AMD took the occasion to improve one of the greatest weaknesses of x86, the fact its register starved. Nothing to do with 64 bit as such but if you are creating a new mode anyway, why not take advantage of that fact to add some other goodies that don't break backward compatibility.

>This is not the case in 64bit mode the CPU is unable to
>access the 32bit registers only the SSE/SSE2 registers

Hu ? You have NO idea what you are talking about.

>So I will restate it again x86-64 is still limited to x86
>instruction messiness in the 64bit mode. Why because all
>the 64bit is, is the 32bit commands/instructions what ever
>you want to call them redone to support 64bit. There is no
>new ISA there is plain Jane x86 with 64bit capabilities
>added.

Gee, how clever.. you found out it is still x86 ? Of course it is! PA Risc is still PA RIsc in 64 bit mode, as is SPARC, Power or MIPS. All those ISA's are 64 bit nevertheless.


>Something that has to emulate x86,

Now there is a usefull definition of a 64 bit cpu ! If it can run x86, it aint 64 bit. What a load of crap.

> something that natively runs in 64bit mode

Like K8. It runs "natively" in 16, 32 AND 64 bit mode, your choice.

> something has been 100% designed around 64bit
>specifications not some hack job where they widened
>pathways.

"Designed around 64 bit specifications" ??? That just makes zero sense, so I can't even begin to debunk it. But as for your "hackjob", it applies to every 64 bit cpu out there, except Alpha and Itanium. The reason is fairly simple, unlike all other ISA's, those where created from the ground up as new ISA's, with no software legacy to be compatible with. AMD64, Power, PA Risc and SParc where, so I guess by your definition, a PA Risc superdome is not a 64 bit computer.

>Also regardless of how the other 64bit competitors started
>out they all moved to a new ISA

No, a hackjob, just like AMD64.

>some did leave 32bit backwards capability in there such as
>Alpha

Shows how much you know I guess. Alpha is not an extended architecture, there is no 32 bit mode or software for Alpha. It doesnt run 32 bit VAX software.

>but in the end they were rebuilt from the ground up to be
>100% compliant to 64bit.

Exactly the same way AMD64 was. And exactly the same way 16 bit x86 was extended to 32 bit x86 with the i386. If a K8 is not a 64 bit cpu by whatever definition you come up with, then Power is still a 32 bit cpu, and Pentium 4 is not a 32 bit cpu, but a native 16 bit core with an ugly 32 bit hackjob.. a marketing scam to make you believe its 32 when really, its still a 16 bit x86 cludge.

FWIW, let me quote John Mashey, SGI:

there is a *long* history in computing that the phrase "X is an N-bit CPU" meant that the architecturally-visible size of the integer (or general-purpose) registers was N bits.

Hence, K8 is a 64 bit cpu, pentium a 32 bit cpu, period.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

 

[juin]

What the F are you talking about ? The extra registers have nothing to do with "64 bit". AMD took the occasion to improve one of the greatest weaknesses of x86, the fact its register starved. Nothing to do with 64 bit as such but if you are creating a new mode anyway, why not take advantage of that fact to add some other goodies that don't break backward compatibility

Reg wideness and number have nothing to do with the ISA.You should know that.

Designed around 64 bit specifications" ??? That just makes zero sense, so I can't even begin to debunk it. But as for your "hackjob", it applies to every 64 bit cpu out there, except Alpha and Itanium. The reason is fairly simple, unlike all other ISA's, those where created from the ground up as new ISA's, with no software legacy to be compatible with. AMD64, Power, PA Risc and SParc where, so I guess by your definition, a PA Risc superdome is not a 64 bit computer.

Pentium pro was for 32 bit and 16 bit was sacrifice unlike 386 and 486.
i need to change useur name.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by juin on 03/19/04 07:32 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[P4Man]

Xeon, or spud as you used to be called, this would be a good time to stop this argument, because you are looking really silly saying things as:

The fact that the Opteron has a 64bit ALU but a 80bit FPU still makes it a 32bit system if it was built around 64bit it would be 160 bit thus to allow for extra precision, this is not the case.

But it doesn’t matter what x86 is it could evolve to 128bit but it is still limited to register limitations and code structures, retire limits, table sizes, loop sizes, and decode steps to name a few.

and I like this one best:

They are also designed to natively run 32bit code without having to run it into protected mode, which is necessary to run in 16bit mode.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

 

[P4Man]

If you'd rephrase all that into a understandable english sentences, I might be able to respond.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

 

[jrosenst]

Darko21 wrote:
Ok you want to do complex calculations or algorithum compression then Intel has a slight advantage at the moment…

That’s all I am trying to say. The thread is titled “I see absolutely no reason to go Intel now” and I was just suggesting that there are, if fact, a few reasons.

 

[darko21]

Re: That’s all I am trying to say. The thread is titled “I see absolutely no reason to go Intel now” and I was just suggesting that there are, if fact, a few reasons.

Yes the title of this thread is nothing but flame bait. I honestly keep forgetting that, the topics have moved around quite a bit.

Yes close as they are intel and amd in the very high end seem to beat one another depending on the app used.

I did not realize you were responding to the title of this thread. What you said "Well, if you’re in an environment where money is no object (military) and you just want the fastest thing, then atm it's Intel."
is a bit of flame bait in itself (guess I got sucked in) since what you really ment was millitary tons of money to burn and you happen to know that the computer will only be running an app that the intel design has a clear advantage.

heck yeah why not.

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.

 

[Xeon]

The moment <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.html?i=1961&p=4" target="_new">this</A> changes I will have no problem admitting my possible error in my judgment. If the A64 is natively 64 bit then its 64 bit performance should be equal to greater than it's 32 bit performance.

Xeon

<font color=orange>Scratch Here To Reveal Prize</font color=orange>

 

[trooper11]

well once it has a fully functional os to support it then we can all see if tis true or not. id like to see how the linux 64 editions are doing, havent seen any benches comparing those 32bit versus 64bit.

 

[endyen]

Yes only a 15% gain in multimedia is dissapointing, but the real show will start when software realizes to be #1 they will have to code for the A64. That 15% is enough to pass the P4 by just the same.

 

[Xeon]

It's back and forth with the multimedia software. Regardless of what specific path is used.

Xeon

<font color=orange>Scratch Here To Reveal Prize</font color=orange>

 

[P4Man]

> If the A64 is natively 64 bit then its 64 bit performance
>should be equal to greater than it's 32 bit performance.

Completely besides the point. First, speed doesnt determine if something is 64 bit or not; I'm getting tired of saying this, but Power, PA Risc and Sparc are NOT faster in 64 bit mode either (except when doing 64 bit integer math obviously, or when running memory address space starved applications; in both those cases K8 will be substantially faster as well for obvious reasons). K8 is an exception because unlike other 64 bit ISA's, its likely faster running just about any code in 64 bit because of the additional enhancements (extra GPR and SSE2 registers). Traditional 64 bit ISA's are likely to lose a little performance because of larger code sizes among other things.

Secondly, the benchmarks you are seeing is just a result of poor/early videodrivers. Every non 3D app runs about equally fast in 32 bit mode under a 64 bit OS, and gains performance when recompiled to 64 bits. 3D apps/games are not likely to be an exception once the drivers mature.

AMD64 is every "bit" as much a 64 bit ISA as Power, Sparc, PA Risc and as much as IA32 is a 32 bit ISA. Surely you remember early 32 bit office benchmarks under NT that where slower than 16 bit office under windows 95 ?

This has nothing to do with having an opinion, its a simple fact regardless if you like it or not, and regardless how it performs and regardless how MS or intel market it.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

 

[Xeon]

Well see when the software comes out woun't we.

Xeon

<font color=orange>Scratch Here To Reveal Prize</font color=orange>

 

[juin]

Traditional 64 bit ISA's are likely to lose a little performance because of larger code sizes among other things.

That include K8 like any others

i need to change useur name.

 

[P4Man]

>Ya I suppose and look Intel wins again, shucks eh how their
>claims are tossed out

<A HREF="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=15057" target="_new">They won again !</A> They finally won a licence for technology they have been using for ten years, it only costed them an additional $203M

So, using your vocabulary, <i>Intel tried to steal legitimate technologies from Intergraph and claim them as their own. They loose like the theives they are. </i>

Maybe we should boycot Intel from now on, and buy VIA processors instead ? Don't you think Crashman ?

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

 

[Xeon]

You know that’s bull dude the semi conductor industry and the patents issued there in, is retarded. Christ you can patent an addition shift after 2 FP variables have been divided.

Any crap can be patented and that’s the problem. These guys work away, and don’t go and sit at the patent office waiting for innovative ideas to steal and implement.

Maybe in the EU you guys got to do it that way so your business survives but that’s because your government needs to step in because you can’t compete with American companies. Last I check capitalism and free trade are used over there, as it is here.

Xeon

<font color=orange>Scratch Here To Reveal Prize</font color=orange>

 

[kinney]

If you'd rephrase all that into a understandable english sentences, I might be able to respond.

Not everyone is a master of English, you bigot.
You can understand what hes saying.
You should be more accepting of other cultures you small minded twit.

____________________________
<b>RESIDENT FORUM WARRIOR
<font color=purple>I just neutered the cat.
Now he's a liberal.</font color=purple></b>

 

[kinney]

I like AMD, I like Intel.

But this-

Does a 32bit CPU with 64bit extensions make it a 64bit CPU or a 32bit CPU with 64bit extensions?

Is frankly, undeniable for anyone.

The Athlon 64 is not a true 64bit CPU.
I will say right now, I dont even like the A64 because of its 64bit extensions (thats all they are)..
they are meaningless.

They will remain meaningless until Intel releases a 64bit capable processor.

Unfortunately, for AMD, this is the sad reality.. they can do crafty moves like this and STILL lose.

The OS market WILL follow Intel if they choose to completely forgo AMD64s route and do something that doesnt work with 64bit software designed for the AMDs.

Anyone care to disagree?
I dont think so. Intel says where the market is going- when, how and why.

The A64 is a great 32bit processor, is it nice that it has meaningless, very possibly poor 64bit extensions/performance (take your pick).

But is ANYONE willing to buy it based on THAT merit alone?
Anyone here?

Let me answer that for you all, NOPE!

Fact remains, its not a 64bit processor.
Its a 32bit with 64bit extensions.

Its the fact that this "64bit power" means absolutely nothing, which really makes the situation sad.

Question remains, anyone here buying a Athlon 64 for its 64bit performance?
Gotcha.

You will be buying an Intel for that, as they have the clout. They decide when 64bit has its day in consumer computing.
Even someone who prefers AMD such as myself can admit that.

AMD keeps talking about the <i>64bit future</i>, when they know that the future depends on Intel. Otherwise they'd be saying the future is here.
Its not.
No one listens to AMD. They listen to Intel, they decide the future.

AMD makes great, cheap 32bit processors.. this is why I like them.
Its really funny to see people try to make the A64 into something that it is not.
Great 32bit? Sure.
Great 64bit? Not by a long shot.. it failed most expectations in preliminary tests and remains irrelevant regardless.

____________________________
<b>RESIDENT FORUM WARRIOR
<font color=purple>I just neutered the cat.
Now he's a liberal.</font color=purple></b>

 

[kinney]

Maybe in the EU you guys got to do it that way so your business survives but that’s because your government needs to step in because you can’t compete with American companies.

You're correct. They cant compete with North America as a whole.

So if all of central Europe binds themselves together they will be able to put all of the little influence they each have.. into something that someone actually pays attention to for once.
What they cant make up for in lack of smarts, they are hoping to make up in size.
USSR=EU? Looks like it.
Cant wait to see them blowing each other up once they cant get along, as usual.. then the rest of the world will be cleaning up their mess again.

It really is like a revolving door of idiocy over there.
With P4Man the Master of English and ethnocentric boob at the helm!

____________________________
<b>RESIDENT FORUM WARRIOR
<font color=purple>I just neutered the cat.
Now he's a liberal.</font color=purple></b>

 

[Xeon]

With P4Man the Master of English and ethnocentric boob at the helm!

Well played my friend well played, ethnocentric... what a creative way to describe him. You truly got my laugh good sir.

Xeon

<font color=orange>Scratch Here To Reveal Prize</font color=orange>

 

[trooper11]

well id say intel does not dictate the market on a couple of areas. you think you would have ehard anyhting from intel about 64bit for xeons or desktop prescotts this year if it wasnt for amd's initial pressure and microsoft's initial spur of support? I doubt that. Intel did not want to push 64 bit, maybe to protect certain lines, or they really didnt think it was needed. Well now all the turn around and they think it should be, so it will move onto xeons and future use on prescotts supposedly. Also, Intel falling back on the mhz race, well they have picked up on the fact that maybe they shoudlnt focus on raw mhz alone and look more for a balanced rating aka pr number to show consumers what to buy. Well do you think this owuld have happend so soon if it wasnt for amd's constant battle and recent inroads to take performance areas away from intel. now ill agree taht intel wants to drive the market place, but i have a feeling that the market isnt as much a push over as it use to be. Intel wants btx becuase it needs btx, it wants ddr2 becuase it needs ddr2. We all know this isnt some benevolent cause intel is running to give the public btx, ddr2, and the like, these are out of neccesity.

You mentioned that 64bit early numbers didnt look good on amd. Well i have sene bad numbers before form beta drives and beta OSes, thsi is no different. No one cna say wether it is poorly implimented or if it will shine out of the box. I wouldnt make any conclusions based on beta support and near zero apps and benchmarks to try out. When ful versions arrive, then you can make your statement. Microsoft will be releasing Windows 64bit before intel releases its 64bit desktop part, I wouldnt call that being swayed by intel, microsoft isnt afraid of them. Microsoft is known for its delays, so I dont see any indication of anyhting sinister.

 

[kinney]

you think you would have ehard anyhting from intel about 64bit for xeons or desktop prescotts this year if it wasnt for amd's initial pressure and microsoft's initial spur of support? I doubt that.

Im not really arguing against that.
All my points had nothing to do with this.. of course, competition is always good.

I am just saying the things contained within my above post.
You ARE speaking to a HUGE AMD fanboy, that is well known for that across this forum... I know the other "side".

I agree with everything your saying... I just think it has little to do with contradicting my last post about AMD64.


Here is where I do disagree-

You mentioned that 64bit early numbers didnt look good on amd. Well i have sene bad numbers before form beta drives and beta OSes, thsi is no different.

Well, yes and no. I mean I dont see how anything but the gaming benchmarks could increase dramatically (due to driver increases),
either its operating in 64bit mode with 64bit apps or its not.

I dont see how you "optimize" further for some 64bit-extensions.
I DO see how 64bit video drivers MIGHT be a bit premature though.

I wouldnt make any conclusions based on beta support and near zero apps and benchmarks to try out. When ful versions arrive, then you can make your statement

I'm not. But it certainly is a bad omen.
Quite the contrary, in no way could the results be looked at as a "good thing", that its performing so very far beneath expectations.
I doubt optimizations can bring it up to what people were expecting.. it'd be a huge (read: 30-40%) increase.
Probably not going to happen.

Microsoft will be releasing Windows 64bit before intel releases its 64bit desktop part, I wouldnt call that being swayed by intel, microsoft isnt afraid of them.

Not afraid, just buddies.
64bit consumer Windows is, and only will be-
an immature, disregarded platform until Intel releases their 64bit processor. Until its loaded on every Dell, Gateway and HP shipped out to Joe Blow Consumer this will be true.
Thats what my original post was saying.. to put it concisely.

And I do believe that Intel is on fire after the A64 release.. count on them pulling out all the guns (and do not doubt that they are an EXTREMELY capable semiconductor company) to defeat AMD hands-down in the 64bit age...
which will come, only after they say the 64bit era truly begins.

____________________________
<b>RESIDENT FORUM WARRIOR
<font color=purple>I just neutered the cat.
Now he's a liberal.</font color=purple></b>

 

[hogfather]

Just a small point to add - if this amd64 thing is dependant upon Intel releasing a 64 chip, why has intel announced all its 64 bit instructions will be compatable with amd64? If Intel really did OWN the market place, why wouldn't they do like they did with Itanium? Make a totally incompatable cpu, and make oems, microsoft et cetera chooose which to follow? Because they simply can't risk it!

Also, I think your views on how weak the EU is *allegedly* is not really relevant on a hardware forum. Maybe I should mention that the EU has more trading power than NAFTA, and if we can't cope with american companies, then you wouldn't believe hoow much evidence there is of the usa being unable to compete with china, for example. Did you know that the USA banned silk imports from china for 5 years because it was destroying your own industry? And believe me, that's only a single example. Lets talk about the ethic tactic by many us companies to base all production *just* over the mexican border so that they can pay peanuts with out anyone complaining about pay in their own beloved nation.

As for your "clean up their mess" comments, why do a number of self ritious americans think that they are matyrs for helping an ally? How about the fact that nations such as Britain and Spain stood by dear old uncle sam in his quest against "evil do-ers" lol (I've never seen the world as one great big comic book before GWB - the usa plays Batman, Bin Laden and Sadddam play the Green Goblin and The Joker) even though we're paying for it now, like the madrid train bombings for helping the usa.

Jesus, get off your damn pedestal.


ps sorry to anyone who may take offense other than whom it's intended for, its just I can't stand views like that :|

XP2000, 512 ddr 2700ram, GF4 MX440, XP Pro

 

[kinney]

- if this amd64 thing is dependant upon Intel releasing a 64 chip, why has intel announced all its 64 bit instructions will be compatable with amd64? If Intel really did OWN the market place, why wouldn't they do like they did with Itanium? Make a totally incompatable cpu, and make oems, microsoft et cetera chooose which to follow? Because they simply can't risk it!

Because in the Wintel alliance, MS has the most power. Do I think they 'really' do? No.

I think if Intel wanted to change the way 64bit comes into this world they certainly could.
I think we BOTH know this is true.

But MS said either they use IA64 or AMD64. Theyve spent two years developing their 64bit Windows OS and they dont want to redo all the work.
Now, there IS a third choice, change up the AMD64 instruction set in just small increments.. which is apparantly to my knowledge, what they have done.

Fact remains, 64bit Windows will never gain mass popularity without Intels blessing.
They run the show. I believe that if Intel never, ever releases a 64bit consumer CPU that this wont make them irrelevant in the market.. but would rather make AMDs 64bit capability forever a oddity and curiousity as it is now.

even though we're paying for it now, like the madrid train bombings for helping the usa.

You are an utter fool if you honestly believe that Spain somehow, in anyway, shape or form deserved that act of terrorism.
They try to stop terrorists and they step up attacks.
That should FURTHER their, and our, resolve to end terrorism as we now see for SURE their means to their ends.. death of innocent lives.
Not right. And not something that should be blamed on something like defending yourself as Spain has done from radical terrorists who declared a Jihad on all of the western world over a decade ago.

Its like saying that if we had never declared war on terrorism that they would have always left us alone.
This apparantly is not true. On the contrary, they have always been waiting for the opportune moment to strike us ALL.
For America at least, 9/11 has proven this without doubt.
For Europe, I do not honestly know enough but I do know that they've had problems with radical Islamic terrorists and violence in many nations for some time.

As for your "clean up their mess" comments, why do a number of self ritious americans think that they are matyrs for helping an ally? How about the fact that nations such as Britain and Spain stood by dear old uncle sam in his quest against "evil do-ers" lol

Heh, you have not read all of my views have you? Its obvious from that statement you do not know my stances.

I have NOTHING against the UK and Spain. Talk about stand up nations that have had stand up leadership that I think reflects their people's resolve, courage and intellect.
My beef is with P4man and his anti-American beliefs. This guy is truly twisted.

Head over to the 'other' forum if you'd like to continue this discussion.. you'll witness myself absolutely pummelling this pathetic excuse for a European P4Man back into the ignorant little hole he crawled out of.

____________________________
<b>RESIDENT FORUM WARRIOR
<font color=purple>I just neutered the cat.
Now he's a liberal.</font color=purple></b>

 

[trooper11]

well I think the big point I disagree with is that you think the 64bit numbers should be steller now, and since they re worse, then it must be worse whne they get full drivers and a full OS to run it. I just dont think you can predict this to be true. Yes it has to be running in 64bit mode or not, but Windows is in beta, and it may not be handling 64bit mode well. Im not saying it will be aweosme when it is ocmpleted, but im saying you cant say either way. If this had all been in private betas, then there wouldnt be any numbers to show and everyone would just accept it and wait for the full version. I really think looking at a beta platform and making a judgement like that is premature. I do see the problems they are having, and yes, I know the gaming nubmers are horid, but I do think the drivers AND Windows are playing a part in those low numbers. We havnet evne seen numbers for ati, and we wont till they release their drivers. Which makes me wonder if ati might have been smarter doing that. They see all these ppl criticizing the bad gaming with nvidia, and they decided to not release beta drivers and instead wait till they knew they had comperable performance. In the end, this is all speculation, of course you can try to guess how thigns will pan out, but i just cant see certainty yet.

I agree that intel does controll the market at large. They can push whatever they want, soemtimes it works, other times it doesnt. The more amd is adopted by companies like hp, the more they will have a say in the market. I dont agree though, that if intel brought no 64bit cpu out,t aht it owuld kill amd's offering, you give intel too much credit. It was amd taht first brought ddr to its linewhile intel stuck with rambus, but we see how that turned out, intel went to ddr just the same. Intel could have used itaniums 64 bit code and just used the Windows for itanium on thier chips if they wanted to isolate amd, but of course that would be stupid, becuase of the known 32bit weaknesses. Instead they adopt amd's set and modify them just enough so taht some things wont run on intel chips and vice versa. I do belive taht evne if intel did not realse a 64bit chip, which they wont be for at least a year, that amd will still make progress with theirs.

 

[kinney]

I agree with you overall.. I mean, what you're saying makes sense.

I'll clarify.

Im not saying it will be aweosme when it is ocmpleted, but im saying you cant say either way.

I'd agree with you on the first part, this is most likely the turnout because I've never seen stuff increase in the amounts that I think would be necessary to satisfy the public to make 64bit something to rush into, before Intel has it.

I would though, say that this is an early indicator.. while this pointer is rather discouraging.. I would agree this is not the final result.

In the gaming arena, as well as the other lackluster improvements... I think that maybe, just maybe that "newer, bigger, better" is not ALWAYS true. Or at least, this wont be "bigger and better" enough to convince people for some time.

I really do belive that until Intel endorses this... its just not going to take off.
History has already kind of shown this.. A64 has been out and no major hooplah has occurred.
Still kind of a curiousity rather than striking a sense of urgency into consumers to buy into the technology.

I have always considered myself an AMD fanboy. And Im going with a 2.4A rather than a A64 myself, that to me.. speaks pretty loudly.

I dont agree though, that if intel brought no 64bit cpu out,t aht it owuld kill amd's offering, you give intel too much credit. It was amd taht first brought ddr to its linewhile intel stuck with rambus, but we see how that turned out, intel went to ddr just the same.

Correct, but I dont think the Rambus story was a close enough parallel to this situation to be valid.
Rambus was a failed technology, it wasnt AMD that really made SDRAM the better choice.. they just happened to not be involved in the partnership.

If RDRAM HAD taken off, and WAS superior.. AMD would be choking on dust right now.
They just got lucky.
It was more due to AMD getting lucky and kind of being forced to go that route rather than their intelligence.

I do belive taht evne if intel did not realse a 64bit chip, which they wont be for at least a year, that amd will still make progress with theirs.

True, but I see it pointless as I said before until all Dells, HPs and Gateways are shipping with 64bit, that will require Intel.

Dont worry I dont overestimate or give Intel too much credit.. I'm no huge fan of Intel.. I'm just trying to keep it real.
That being said, I'm glad for their 64bit efforts no matter how little effort they actually did put into it... its still there and done.
Certainly cant fault them for that!

____________________________
<b>RESIDENT FORUM WARRIOR
<font color=purple>I just neutered the cat.
Now he's a liberal.</font color=purple></b>