Intel bribing THG? Is it possible?

eden · Oct 7, 2003

That's true, I knew about the differences, but essentially they are both the same on-die memory controllers with DDR400, in that they run very much at the same speeds. If it were DDR333 I'd give him credit. I do however see your point. But am not entirely convinced to say they are different.

I'm actually wondering though, where does the dual channel set itself. On-die or from the circuitry outside?

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </A> :lol:

Guest · Oct 7, 2003

>Difference between MMX/SSE/SSE2 comparisons is Intel had
>compilers that did the work.

From what I recall, it took ages before even ICC properly made use of MMX (first and only demo's for years where handcoded photoshop filters) then SSE, and recently SSE2. Proper compiler support are *always* behind silicon.

As for AMD64, GCC happens to be *the* most commonly used compiler in the world, be it for Linux, windows or pretty much any OS. its free, and it supports AMD64. Other compilers include those of Portland group for Fortran and Microsoft VS (though MS' is still in beta for now).

>The costs to add 64bit code to a majority of software out
>there isn’t necessary since they aren’t chewing at the 4
>gig >barriers.

Please define 'majority of software'. If you mean Word, Excel, zonealarm and MSN messenger, then you are right. But those apps don't need SSE/2/MMX/PNI/HT either. If you mean software that makes high end computers sell, you may think again. At work, I run into a 2 GB brick wall (its TWO GB, not 4) every day on my exchange mailbox. Our IC engineers use tools that require as much as 12 GB virtual address space, my sister in law works on multiple gigabyte photoshop files every day. A friend of mine is a sound engineer in a recording studio, still converting from digital to analog and back because their digital equipment can't handle remixing the HUGE files. You may not need >2GB yet, I don't need it at home or on my desktop yet, that doesnt make it useless to everyone. My mother doesnt need a hyperthreading 3 GHz cpu either. Does that proof anything ?

>AMD64 is 8 additions registers that’s all it is and all it
>ever will be.

Yeah lol.. go to tell IBM's DB2 team, EPIC, Valve, Autodesk, microsoft, SAP, Siebel, etc.. I'm sure they will agree with you. IT may be all it is to *you* though, so ? I've had SSE in my old P3-500 desktop for years, and never used it. You know what is different with AMD64 ? I paid a hefty price premium for my P3-450 over a identical performing P2-450. AMD64 is "free". Don't need it ? Fine, just don't complain its there for those that may need it. I assure you, you will need or at least want it one day, and that day will be no more than a year or two from now. Probably the same day Intel announces its own 64 bit x86 extention.

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

Guest · Oct 7, 2003

>A few years old is the key expression dude.

If you have any more recent numbers, feel free to share them, "dude". Marketshares may go up and down, but I see no evidence those numbers would have changed significantly. AMD's overall marketshare went down a few percent, but since I don't see any indications they suddenly made huge progress in the corporate market, its only logical to assume they still hold a strong position in the home markets, and those are the "enthousiast fan boys" Omid keeps ranting about. I've never seen an overclocking fanboy IT manager in a fortune 500 company.

>Back in the day, the K6 was sold on IBM Aptivas and many >others.

Aptiva's sold like hot cakes.. NOT!
Athlon's are now offered in HP models, Packard Bell, Fujitsu Siemens and others. If anything changed, I'd say there are now more tier 1 or 2 OEM's offering AMD based products than in the K6 days, so i'm not sure what your point is.

>So before you start thinking that market dominance they

Am I ?

>supposedly have is any significant, it proves nothing,
>absolutely nothing. For all we know, 50% of these may be K6
>CPUs and low-end 600MHZ Tbirds.

So what is your point ? Intel has a bigger marketshare and higher ASP's ? What else is new ? Does this proof AMD's management is incompetent or its products inferior ? Fat chance. Does this prove you or Omid are any less clueless in how to change the tide than Hector or Dirk Meyer ?

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

Guest · Oct 7, 2003

> Touting its 64-bit capabilities is silly at best. No one
>is using 4GB at home for home use. If anything, we should
>tout the AMD64 FEATURES, not the 64-bit.

I'm using 1 GB ram today at home and 1,5 GB at work, on an 1 and 2 year old computer. 2 GB per process is the useable limit of x86, and not 4 GB. How long do you think it will take before even I hit it ? And before you start ranting about the /3GB switch, I suggest you do some reading on MS knowledgebase, and think twice before turning it on.

Of course, you could always do with 16 or 32 MB and run Windows95 to browse this forum, and think that is all everyone will ever need. Touting >128 MB or >600 MHz is probably silly at best as well ?

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

eden · Oct 7, 2003

I'm using 1 GB ram today at home and 1,5 GB at work, on an 1 and 2 year old computer. 2 GB per process is the useable limit of x86, and not 4 GB. How long do you think it will take before even I hit it ? And before you start ranting about the /3GB switch, I suggest you do some reading on MS knowledgebase, and think twice before turning it on.

Of course, you could always do with 16 or 32 MB and run Windows95 to browse this forum, and think that is all everyone will ever need. Touting >128 MB or >600 MHz is probably silly at best as well ?

You're a big minority with your 1.5GB. Furthermore you're not even following my point.
People are touting AMD64 as if right now or even next year 4GB will become a limit. I think you are very delusional with your ideas about how we're gonna need that soon. At best, next year the minimum low-end PC will need 256MB, the mid-end 512MB, and high-end like ours' at 1GB. You seriously are not providing me with any case to discuss. 4GB simply IS NOT needed. I don't know about your 2GB thing so I won't debate that.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </A> :lol:

eden · Oct 7, 2003

>A few years old is the key expression dude.

If you have any more recent numbers, feel free to share them, "dude". Marketshares may go up and down, but I see no evidence those numbers would have changed significantly. AMD's overall marketshare went down a few percent, but since I don't see any indications they suddenly made huge progress in the corporate market, its only logical to assume they still hold a strong position in the home markets, and those are the "enthousiast fan boys" Omid keeps ranting about. I've never seen an overclocking fanboy IT manager in a fortune 500 company.

>Back in the day, the K6 was sold on IBM Aptivas and many >others.

Aptiva's sold like hot cakes.. NOT!
Athlon's are now offered in HP models, Packard Bell, Fujitsu Siemens and others. If anything changed, I'd say there are now more tier 1 or 2 OEM's offering AMD based products than in the K6 days, so i'm not sure what your point is.

>So before you start thinking that market dominance they

Am I ?

>supposedly have is any significant, it proves nothing,
>absolutely nothing. For all we know, 50% of these may be K6
>CPUs and low-end 600MHZ Tbirds.

So what is your point ? Intel has a bigger marketshare and higher ASP's ? What else is new ? Does this proof AMD's management is incompetent or its products inferior ? Fat chance. Does this prove you or Omid are any less clueless in how to change the tide than Hector or Dirk Meyer ?

Your claims are unfounded and still not proven.
You claiming that they have 70% of household computers when those could've been 2000-2001 sales has absolutely no relevance to today's affecting sales. You seem to live in the past trying to prove AMD is as good and prospering as ever. You've no clue whatsoever how bad they have been handling the business in the past months. Why do I say that? Well, considering most forums, especially this one who used to be all-AMD, have users who switched to Intel, and you still have the budget users with 2500+ OCing it to 2.4GHZ, thereby once more removing AMD of any chance of profits from the XP3200+, I'd say you still have no point when trying to show they got household dominance.

Like I said, last I checked, my P2 350 whom I no longer own, surely ain't countin' in the household owning for Intel's current revenues to prove they are still "out there and kickin'".

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </A> :lol:

shadus · Oct 7, 2003

> At work, I run into a 2 GB brick wall (its TWO GB,
> not 4) every day on my exchange mailbox.

Don't quote me on this-- it's been years since I pissed with it, but as I remember that was a file system limitation not one imposed by the hardware itself. Patched/newer versions of both NTFS and ext2/3 file systems both correct the issue and some file systems you can use on x86 never had the issue in the first place. If memory serves 16gb/32gb is now the limit on the size of a single file in most file systems.

Shadus

shadus · Oct 7, 2003

Edit: HP/Compaq is offering amd's on their site, but we have the largest contract in the world with compaq/hp and we're not getting any athlon stuff... so I really don't think they're promoting it in the business sector, which is where it needs to go for amd to gain marketshare.

ShadusEdited by shadus on 10/07/03 02:20 PM.

spud · Oct 7, 2003

At work, I run into a 2 GB brick wall (its TWO GB, not 4)

If you say so PSE36, 36-bit memory addressing technology that lets a Xeon chip's access up to 64 GBs of memory. Its OS limitations that that dis-allow 4 gig of addressable virtual space 2.25gig is what a normal version of 32bit Windows such as the entire NT line will allow a piece of software to access.

OEM's such as IBM, HP have hacked version of Windows NT to drop in their larger cluster systems that run with 2-4-8-16-32 clusters. The CPU and the Chipset can address the memory in full its all the OS buddy.

As for AMD64, GCC happens to be *the* most commonly used compiler in the world, be it for Linux, windows or pretty much any OS. its free, and it supports AMD64. Other compilers include those of Portland group for Fortran and Microsoft VS (though MS' is still in beta for now).

Also the version of GCC you are talking about is what version 3.3.1 right??? Oh that is as buggy as the last versions right? Just like every other version that have made. It’s not the most used by PC software makers MSVS is plain and simple. GCC is an open source joke that lives off the SCO compiler development; so don’t be fvcking tossing that bull shite in my face.

Aptiva's sold like hot cakes.. NOT!

Actually close it was e-machines that sold like hot cakes.

~Jeremy
Unofficial Intel PR Spokesman.(nVidia fill in rep for CoolSquirtle)

:evil:

<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=faq&notfound=1&code=1" target="_new">Busting Sh@t Up In My Buddies Face!!!</A> :evil:

Guest · Oct 7, 2003

>You're a big minority with your 1.5GB.

big minority is indeed the word. People owning >3GHz or >3000+ computers are also a "big minority". Maybe 0.5% of the entire installed base. But what is high end now, is mainstream in a year or so, and budget the year after. 1+ GB is high end now, 512 mainstream and 128/256 budget. Games are beginning to require 512 MB minimum to enable all options, with 1 GB being recommended. TODAY. You expect that won't change in the next years ? A few years ago we where all happy with 64 Mb. A few year before that, 16 MB was outrageous. Don't you get it ? No one is saying *everyone* needs 4 or 16 GByte NOW. Not AMD, not me, not anyone.

Fact remains some need it NOW (howlong have 64 bit cpu's been the norm in the workstation market ?), and we will all need it one day. I don't see why everyone keeps arguing "64 bit is useless.." its a NECESSECITY for some now and for all of us soon. Why wait until EVERYONE needed it yesterday before introducing the technology, seeding the market, making the tools, OS, compilers and software available ? Now is the time, many people are hitting the 32 bit wall, and many more will follow soon.

It really isnt any different from the transition to the 386. I worked on a 286 Zenith "workstation" with a whopping 512 KB EMS add-in board that costed about as much as a used car back then, and was only usefull in 1 or 2 Autodesk tools. Did anyone claim back then that everyone needed a 386 with some huge 4 GB address limit ? That we all needed more than 640 Kb usefull memory that a 286 and DOS could supply ? That we needed multitasking or protected memory ? Hell no, WP worked fine on 286 with 512 kb RAM, our secretary didnt need more. Pacman ran fine too, as did Flight Simulator 1.

Does that mean that introducing a 32 bit capable cpu was bullshit ? That we should have staid with 16 bit designs for ever ? That intel should have delayed i386 for another decade or so ? You know I recommended a 286-16 MHz to a friend of mine back then, because a 386 was just too expensive IMHO, and hardly performed any better than a fast clocked 286. Got any idea how that backfired on me when he wanted to install windows 3.1 a year or two later on his "nearly new" $3000+ computer and found out he couldnt ? That he needed a new PC for that ?

My guess is you are too young to remember that transition, and you don't have enough real world experience to be in a position to give any credible or sound advice on this, but pretty much anyone in the industry knows AMD64 is a move that was overdue rather than premature. After all, intel released the first 64 bit cpu how many years ago ? Expecting it to be on our desktop by now.. And didnt it just release a <$700 64 bit workstation chip ? DO you think that proves nearly no one needs 64 bit ?

Just like not everyone needed a $4000 386-16 MHz cpu back then, not everyone needs a Athlon64 right now, sure. But unlike the original 386 launch, the Athlon 64 costs about the same as a bread and butter cpu (barton), outperforms it by a considerable margin even in 32 bit legacy mode, flies on certain apps in 64 bit mode (did you see those compression tests ?), has OS support for its new features today (linux), and broad support (windows) by next year, it performs at least on par with the fastest and more expensive intel products and will cost less than $200 in a quarter or two. I *really* can't understand why anyone would bash the AMD64 idea, unless he or she owns more intel stock than common sense.

>I don't know about your 2GB thing so I won't debate that

I guess that just shows how little you really know then. That is not meant as an insult, but you should stop advocating things you seem to know little or nothing about.

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

eden · Oct 7, 2003

I think it's even funnier how the Intel compiler is superior, and when AMD used it, their processors performed better!
I wonder if Intel made the compiler for AMD64, if it wouldn't really just be better than any others.

You know what is funny though here? He is under the impression we are bashing AMD64 in itself, and AMD. Guess no matter how often you quote yourself and someone else, you can't get it through their thick skulls. C'mon Spud, off to some smoochin'.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </A> :lol:

Guest · Oct 7, 2003

>Don't quote me on this-- it's been years since I pissed
>with it, but as I remember that was a file system
>limitation not one imposed by the hardware itself.

I'm not sure, could be. My network admin claims its due to Exchange itself, the OS (Win2k enterprise) has no problem with files >2 GB; that has been cured many years ago with NT 3.51 and NTFS AFAIK.. Im not sure what I am seeing is an OS, Echange or x86 problem, but I know its a very real world problem every f*cking time I get back from a long weekend. Just *try* synchronizing an exchange folder that contains a gig or two.. mission impossible, even on very fast hardware and a gigabit network (switched virtual lan with 5 clients !).

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

spud · Oct 7, 2003

Oh ya baby!!!

~Jeremy
Unofficial Intel PR Spokesman.(nVidia fill in rep for CoolSquirtle)

:evil:

<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=faq&notfound=1&code=1" target="_new">Busting Sh@t Up In My Buddies Face!!!</A> :evil:

eden · Oct 7, 2003

I don't usually say this, but you are BADLY clueless!

You continue reading THROUGH the lines.
You still don't get it, and I won't go as low as quoting myself on this one, because you're not worth the time. All you read is through the lines like you don't understand. We DO NOT NEED 64-bit now, and where did I say we did and then bashed it? Where did you see me say AMD64 is not needed?
You obviously did not read when I mentioned it was not needed in terms of 64-bit, as it is NOT useful for us home users, but that the extra registers are what AMD64 is currently about. People tout its 64-bit capabilities when we know it's not coming now nor next year. Yet you seem to think I don't want that implementation now for better future-proofness.

You are absolutely clueless in reading. You repeat the same thing, and you make us all repeat ourselves trying to show you we're not bashing the 64-bit idea but pointing the real fact currently 64-bit is not needed for home. We're not even bashing it, we're just pointing wrong what people seem to think is true. I've supported AMD64, but I sure as heck am not naive to say "finally I can use 64-bit addressing, off to the store to get sticks!"
And yet you think we are saying we are against it.

Read the lines man, seriously. And good long USELESS post trying to prove what I actually agree with.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </A> :lol: Edited by Eden on 10/07/03 03:03 PM.

Guest · Oct 7, 2003

>If you say so PSE36, 36-bit memory addressing technology
>that lets a Xeon chip's access up to 64 GBs of memory.

I say so. PAE lets a xeon (or even an obsolete pentium 2) address >4 GB of memory pretty much like a 286 could access more than 1 MB using EMS/XMS. Its a terrible cludge, slow as hell, and frustrating to write software for it. And it *still* limits you to 4 GBs per process, 2 GB realistically in the case of Windows and Linux. 4 GB/process in NOT an OS limitation, its a x86 limitation. The 2 GB is an OS issue, but since you can't write an OS and a kernel that don't use any RAM, you will always be limited to much less than 4 on x86.

>Also the version of GCC you are talking about is what
>version 3.3.1 right??? Oh that is as buggy as the last
>versions right? Just like every other version that have
>made.

Im not talking about any version specificially, but >80% of software is compiled with GCC. MSVC is number two in the market, and ICC is a very small niche player. BTW, ICC is probably a lot bugier than any GCC version ever released, even though its improving fast. ICC is being raved because it produces fast code (and it does), but it is not being used in anything remotely mission criticial because of its no where near as mature or stable as GCC. If you are going to argue this point, I think we have nothing left to discuss.

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

spud · Oct 7, 2003

*spud bangs head against desk* its like talking to a brick wall.

~Jeremy
Unofficial Intel PR Spokesman.(nVidia fill in rep for CoolSquirtle)

:evil:

<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=faq&notfound=1&code=1" target="_new">Busting Sh@t Up In My Buddies Face!!!</A> :evil:

Guest · Oct 7, 2003

I don't feel like discussing semantics, I have better ways to spend my time, but here is what you said:

> Touting its 64-bit capabilities is silly at best.

Well, its not. Not only is it indeed usefull NOW (even though maybe not for you), if you buy a new machine NOW, you will reap the benefits next year, or the year after, and not only because of the added registers, but also because it will support more than 2 GB for your Unreal editor, even if you only have 512 MB or 1 Gig of RAM ! 

I hope you realize x86 with or without PAE limits you to 2-2.5 GB VIRTUAL memory as well ? I hope you realize even 1 or 2 year old games are often approaching or sometimes even exceeding 1 Gig memory footprints ? try BF1942 or RTCW, turn on all the options, just try it !! Now try the leaked Doom3 beta.. You may not need 4 Gigs of ram real soon, but you will be able to make use of more than a measily 2 GB of virtual address space REAL SOON, way before your newly purchased PC is obsolete.

The extra registers are just the icing on the cake, and a sweetener to move the industry over and disguise the inherent performance penalty associated with a 64 bit ISA.

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

papasmurf · Oct 8, 2003

"Why would you overclock a p4 to 3.6ghz for a review on an amd chip?"

"If you bothered to read pretty much any review's title, you'd get the slightest clue the Pentium 4 EE is included in the title of the match. If that is how Intel chose to attack, then reviewers will have to accomodate and review the best of the best."

OK so they just decided to throw in a few results from an overclocked p4 that will never officially be released. yeah that sounds like relevant information!

"The p4ee is not going to be priced well."
"So as the Athlon FX."

The p4ee will not be made in large enough quantities to ever be priced well. The cost of making these chips outweighs the ammount they will gain by selling them in these limited quantities. The athlonfx on the other hand will be made in large numbers and prices will fall.

"that will be unable to be upgraded once prescott arrives and the socket dies."

"...coincidently, once more, so as the Athlon FX!

What's your point? Can you even try to argue without illogical facts? Do you even look at the entire picture? How up to date ARE you on this? You are acting the very same as with the nVidia issue."

...The p4ee's socket will not last past december when prescott comes out however the athlon fx/opteron socket isn't going anywhere! How up to date are YOU on this??

"the amd64 has a different memory controller than the fx and opteron line"

"I never thought I'd see someone confusing an x86 technology pretended as a CPU compared to Opteron and FX.
And IF you meant Athlon64, which you should've tried to, then that proves as well how you don't even think. Prove with a real link that the memory controller isn't the very same.

Seriously, your post is "infested" with flawed arguments and misinformed statements as you always did with the nVidia issue. You have no proof, no basis. So now I am left wondering what will you come up in arguments."

I think you are a little confused about the chips amd has released. Let me help you out here. There are three new cpus out, the opteron: a server cpu for socket 940 capable of running in multi cpu systems. The second is the AthlonFX also using socket 940 designed for enthusiasts and low end servers, it is unable to run in multi cpu systems like the opteron line. Both the opteron and fx uses registered ddr via a 128bit memory controller which is built into the cpu. The third cpu is the Athlon64 which I lazily wrote as amd64, it is designed for midrange home systems and uses socket 754 and a 64bit memory controller. They are different! You want a link? <A HREF="http://www.amdmb.com/article-display.php?ArticleID=260&PageID=3" target="_new">http://www.amdmb.com/article-display.php?ArticleID=260&PageID=3</A>

Join the TomsHardware IRC channel <A HREF="http://skulls.sytes.net/tom/ " target="_new">http://skulls.sytes.net/tom/ </A>

eden · Oct 8, 2003

OK so they just decided to throw in a few results from an overclocked p4 that will never officially be released. yeah that sounds like relevant information!

THG has always overclocked some CPUs and thrown them.

Again as many stated, why don't you bit** at Anandtech's overclocking the Athlon 64? Who cares! Honestly if you skimmed through the review and got fooled, well, too bad for you. We'll cry you a river, you didn't have time to read it all, wa wa.

The p4ee will not be made in large enough quantities to ever be priced well. The cost of making these chips outweighs the ammount they will gain by selling them in these limited quantities. The athlonfx on the other hand will be made in large numbers and prices will fall.

The Athlon FX is a volume-breaker?
<A HREF="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11769" target="_new">http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11769</A>
YOU ARE not up to date. 30 000 is the max the Athlon FX will break until Q2 2004, by the time Prescott should be out and ramping in major volume (0.09m transistor size). Well, case closed on this one.

The p4ee's socket will not last past december when prescott comes out however the athlon fx/opteron socket isn't going anywhere! How up to date are YOU on this??

Spewing like there was no tommorow is your thing isn't it?
<A HREF="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11769" target="_new">http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11769</A>
Same URL, just because it's the closest link I got.
Oh so, according to this link, Socket 940 dies in Q2 next year for Athlon FX, effectively screwing buyers like the Wilamette 423 did. How DO you ever get the facts right!
Oh and you'll also have a hard time how <A HREF="http://oc.com.tw/article/0309/readgoodarticle.asp?id=1969" target="_new">this site</A> and oh my, <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1890&p=4" target="_new">Anandtech </A>(breaking the NDA) actually tested it! See on the bottom of the article the 2.8GHZ CPU? Most unusual of it to be used rather than a 3.2GHZ, right? Well, highlight what's on the right of that line....
😱
So now, explain me with great detail and *insight* how you managed to sum such a lovely conclusion as Prescott changing sockets from the 478, when these sites used i875 or i865 testing boards.

So that's two facts, real as they may be, proving just how inadequate your argumenting is, and how utterly weak it is. 3 times already I've proven you wrong, proving just how much you have been behind. It's not a bad thing to be behind, but it sure as hell is when you barge in here with claims from nowhere. You've been discredited in this post.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </A> :lol: Edited by Eden on 10/07/03 08:50 PM.

eden · Oct 8, 2003

Wooptee-freaking-do (as Scamtron would say), you actually found half what I said and quoted me.

I won't lower myself quoting myself, therefore I will make you go back. Read the phrase right after. Eh? Oh my, I said no one is using 4GB for home use.
Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the "semantics" behind it now does it?
Maybe I'm gonna need to do like Scamtron, highlight in bold the key words just so you don't get lost in there. Do you want me to?

You're wasting your time trying to martyr yourself. Trying to grab the sweet spot, to prove your knowledge to everyone, when clearly no one asked for it, as in provoked it by giving a blatant lie for an argument. So far you've not proven I am against AMD64. I've got lots of past references to posts of mine to prove that I am for its features (although I don't think it's the right way, IA-64 is IMO) but will definitely not stop for you to prove myself. Hell, if I shunned AMD64 and 64-bit, then I wouldn't be considering Opteron as a great chip for servers, hmm? There's some logic here.
Well anyways, wanna prove me I am against 64-bit in general, tt's up to you man. Wanna go on? Fine!

But your arguments have proven nothing when it's mostly stuff I agree with. Except for the 1+GB claims. I won't be needing over that any soon, and definitely not next year. We could of course bet on it, but what's the point. You'll see that the majority of enthusiasts as well as gamers won't need more than a gig next year. I believe RAM follows also the "topping out" philosophy, as in at some point, even if it is at 10GB or whatever, there are home purposes who won't be needing to upgrade for more before a while. Just like CPUs. Once not enough, now overused for most tasks. Sure we'll discover new needs, but the majority is already more than enough for home users. So I beleive that RAM is also gonna have that at some point. Not sure when, but it sure ain't gonna be at 100GB RAM. We're gonna need far less as home users. Maybe I'm naive. I'll see if I'm eventually proven wrong. But I stick to it. Even if we continue to need more each year, we're eventually gonna be slowing down as we've topped out for a bit. I don't beleive we will need 50GB DVD ripping, nor 50GB-size graphics.

And aside from that, who even cares if RTCW, BF1942 use so much memory? They work, at 100FPS, on 512MB or less, right?
Great, case closed as well!

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </A> :lol: Edited by Eden on 10/07/03 09:18 PM.

papasmurf · Oct 8, 2003

Socket 940 will be replaced in the second quarter of 2004 yet the socket the p4ee is on will be replaced in the same quarter as it is made availible! THAT's screwing customers! The FX line will be made in limited quantity for a few months till they get enough of their athlon64 and opteron chips out to meet the demand, the fx IS NOT mainstream, it is for the enthusiasts and bussinesses. The fx will be made in larger numbers eventually the p4ee NEVER WILL. I don't read anandtech I read tomshardware, if it had been anandtech I'd have critisized them for not overclocking the competitors chips as well. Intel is switching over to their socket 775 LGA with prescott, intel will release a few prescott models on the existing socket 478 but within a few months socket 478 will be dead. Eden once again your lack of civility in a debate has made you look silly. I'm not quite sure how my request for an unbiased review has offended you so badly but please for the love of God let this go. None of my points have been proven false, I have backed up everything I've said with fact if you care to dispute this further go right ahead but you will be talking to yourself because I shall not be responding.

Join the TomsHardware IRC channel <A HREF="http://skulls.sytes.net/tom/ " target="_new">http://skulls.sytes.net/tom/ </A>

eden · Oct 8, 2003

I debated the points that I found flawed, not your opinion. You "spewed" a lot, and I've backed my arguments up.

It's up to you to read back what YOU said and then what I said, to see that either:
1)You never were clear on everything or specified both sides of the issue
2)Really didn't get the facts up to date

I know for sure I got you on this one, the facts are there, the quotes are there ready to be used again against you. You COULD save yourself here and use option 1 as the excuse, but you'll need to prove me badly that you didn't bother to look at Intel's side as well.

Eden once again your lack of civility in a debate has made you look silly.

Hey, just making sure Matisaro's soul of aggressivity in debates against misinformed is resting happily over this place until he comes back...

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </A> :lol: Edited by Eden on 10/07/03 09:59 PM.

Guest · Oct 8, 2003

>Maybe I'm gonna need to do like Scamtron, highlight in bold
>the key words just so you don't get lost in there. Do you
>want me to?

Please do. I am still lost why you keep claiming the 64 bitness of A64 is not a useable feature. I'm still unsure what makes you so sure you won't be needing > 2GB virtual address space before your A64/P4EE computer is obsolete and requires replacement anyway, so please use bold if that helps getting your point across.

>And aside from that, who even cares if RTCW, BF1942 use so
>much memory? They work, at 100FPS, on 512MB or less, right?

Right; 2 year old games do, while approaching the limits of what 32 bit x86 can handle. If you are gonna buy a machine to play 2001 games forever, by all means ignore AMD64. IF you are going to buy a new machine to be able to play next years games, and those after that as well, I don't think the case is closed at all. You keep hammering on that "I dont need 4 gigs of ram" while you seem to fail to realize with even 512 MB RAM only, 32 bit addressing imposes a very realistic 2 GB virtual memory brick wall you are gonna hit sooner rather than later. looking forward to the first time you hit that "insufficient virtual memory" error messages while editing a video, creating a map or playing a game, and no ammount of memory upgrading or swap file increasing or OS upgrades can help you out.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =Edited by bbaeyens on 10/08/03 03:51 AM.

infiltrator · Oct 8, 2003

Well, Mr Bill Gates himself said 'who will ever need more than 640k?' I see someone is going to regret ever saying 'who needs 64 bits' 😉 Anything advancing PC Hardware is a good thing, any progress forward is good.

eden · Oct 8, 2003

And you're so sure no company ever planned it, that WinXP 64 isn't there, or how about just WinXP?

I can't help but wonder if MS didn't think about that at some point. Many users use WinXP with big amounts of RAM for certain purposes.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </A> :lol:

Intel bribing THG? Is it possible?

Champion

Guest

Guest

Guest

Guest

Guest

Guest

Champion

Champion

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Guest

Guest

Champion

Guest

Guest

Distinguished

Champion

Guest

Guest

Distinguished

Guest

Guest

Distinguished

Champion

Champion

Distinguished

Champion

Guest

Guest

Distinguished

Champion

Share this page