Intel faces performance struggle for 2 hard years

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I like the idea of a 10ghz processor rather than what Intel/AMD are doing now. Both being equal (cache/smarter design and faster mhz).. I prefer more mhz. Hopefully they'll find a way to ramp them to 10ghz soon.

You can see why AMD took the route they did with the Athlon and A64 now. They never could handle a production MHZ war, so they got smarter..

when Intel cant even do 10ghz easily, you know that AMD never will be capable of doing it. They have to design smarter because their production capacities are so dwarfed.




I think eventually, like always Intel will outpace AMD like the Northwood days.. they just made too many blunders for the next 6months or so to keep pace. I think they are PO'd though and with dual core next year it wont seem as dreary for intel as it seems now..
 
Raystonn was impossible to argue against. He said he worked for Intel and knew everything. I hardly have those kind of credentials and I couldn't prove that he was lying.

</font color=red><i><font color=red>GOD</font color=red> <font color=blue>BLESS </font color=blue><font color=red>AMERICA
 
I like the idea of a 10ghz processor rather than what Intel/AMD are doing now. Both being equal (cache/smarter design and faster mhz).. I prefer more mhz. Hopefully they'll find a way to ramp them to 10ghz soon.

You can see why AMD took the route they did with the Athlon and A64 now. They never could handle a production MHZ war, so they got smarter..

when Intel cant even do 10ghz easily, you know that AMD never will be capable of doing it. They have to design smarter because their production capacities are so dwarfed.




I think eventually, like always Intel will outpace AMD like the Northwood days.. they just made too many blunders for the next 6months or so to keep pace. I think they are PO'd though and with dual core next year it wont seem as dreary for intel as it seems now..
Sorry to tell you that but you are a moron.

Click <font color=blue><A HREF="http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html" target="_new">HERE</A></font color=blue> if you real<b>l</b>y are an <font color=red>idiot</font color=red>.
 
With the amount of money intel has for researching you do expect them to remain on top, and normally AMD shouldnt have kept up and probably should have been out of business. but it didint work that way. there are many reasons for this, one major factor they took amd too lighly, and as well they are not locating their resources in a good way, and one major factor the 15% of the market share amd holds are to their loyal customers, these people supported amd even in the days when they were severly outperformed by intel, thats becaouse of intels bad practices years ago.Right now AMD has the upper hand, they got the better processor all around processor. however i have noticed some dip in their product management recently. i think they made a mess with their prodcut numberings, for example, s754 3400+ (newcastle) easily outperforms s939 3500+. and is much more cheaper. and the supposedly new comings like a64 4000+ practically same as fx-53. its not a good offering in my book. its not a new processor but they are marketing as a new one. AMD may have the best processor around, but they shouldnt think of the consumers as stupid as intel have thought.
 
yep this is the same old thing. intel messed up, thats the only reason its faltering in performance and prefrences among oems and ppl. never anyhting aobut amd's accomplishment. alos hear the same old thought that this si a some sort of flook and intel can take it back at anytime, that just isnt so true anymore.
 
People please!

All the money in the world does not mean that you possess the best products. What happened to Novell when it was king of the networking hill and possessed all of the cash? Where does IBM really stand in the pc market?
 
One thing I seid before. Amd and Intel leap frog each other. Now for price, Market share and such Intel topdog. And AMD is underdog. But Another fact is Amd top dog on speed 64bit chips And Intel right now is the Underdog. Trying to useing extra cache and such.

Everyone remember Intel 3.2ghz. Then Amd released the frist 64 bit chips? Intel quick fix was Intel 3.2 ee L3 2 megs cache. What happen? Well Intel got scared the Underdog Amd was the speed king.
 
i dont think the EE was a 'response' to athlon 64 chips. if it was then intel was pretty stupid to make thier response be a $1k cpu that still istn able to outshine top fx processors in many cases.
 
I can't think of any other reason why they would release that chip. It seemed very much to be a response to the FX specifically. At the time it was released, it was standard fair that people were paying more for Intel chips than AMD chips.

<i>Nemo me impune lacesset</i>
 
why are you bringing up these old ass topics, so he was wrong on a few things. so the [-peep-] what. hindsight is 20 20.

wpdclan.com counter-strike game server - 66.150.155.52:27015
now featuring valve security module!
 
Then Amd released the frist 64 bit chips? Intel quick fix was Intel 3.2 ee L3 2 megs cache.

he didnt say fx, he said amd 64bit chips, thats what i was talking about. the EE wasa response to an fx sure, but not 64bit in general.
 
Got it. That's true, the response to 64bit is EMT64. I'm really looking forward to seeing benches done, like anandtech did for AMD64, on 64bit apps under an EMT64 chip. That will help paint a better picture on how bad off Intel is right now performance wise IMO. Do I expect much? Nope, I expect really sorry numbers, but it will be nice to see the hard evidence.

<i>Nemo me impune lacesset</i>
 
Like many sites said, I'd expect the first generation of chips with EM64T from Intel to be rather pathetic. I'm thinking they need at least 9-12 months to get a truly competitive product out in the CPU market, and even that's optimistic. I don't doubt they'll manage it, but I don't think it will be soon.

Plus, they launched a whole new platform which has yet to catch on. LGA775's adoption will probably be rather limited in 2004. Maybe LGA775 will look better in 2005, who knows.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Mephistopheles on 10/17/04 11:24 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
 
Who cares about Windows XP-64, I've used XP long enough to want to use LornHorn.

Xeon

<font color=red>Post created with being a dickhead in mind.</font color=red>
<font color=white>For all emotional and slanderous statements contact THG for all law suits.</font color=white>
 
XP64 is merely AMDs distraction.. it wont ever be mainstream until Dell starts shipping EMT64 systems and Microsoft supports EMT64 in XP64.
Besides a tinkering Linux user.. 64bit on the desktop shouldnt excite a soul with a brain.

Its pretty clear that AMD never could keep up production wise.. and things might get a bit harder for them as they arent nearly as capable when it comes to popping tons of cache on processors.


If both manufacturers are almost maxed out speed wise (2.6ghz and 3.8ghz).. which i dont entirely believe quite YET (i know AMD has a shrink coming soon and intel does too sometime as well)..
then cache is the short term answer. That solution, IF amd is stuck to doing it with Intel.. is a losing game.. and fast.
They just couldnt put 1mb of cache on every processor they produce and remain competitive.. it will be like the olden days. Lots of RED.

Not that the P4 will ever catch up to the AMD in gaming performance.. but the gap will shorten up fast once AMD is stuck to the cache method of improving performance, while intel puts out dual core 3.6ghz processors with 2MB of cache.
 
Reality check. Amd has been shipping chips with 1 meg of cache, for over a year. Intel is stalled at 3.6, while Amd has just shown they have 25% more headroom. Amd has caught up even in the "built for Intel" progs.
Look, I know you want your god, intel, to rule, and she will again. Just not for a year or two.
 
while Amd has just shown they have 25% more headroom.
Really? I must have missed that one. 25%, you say? They have 2.4Ghz processors for a while now, so I assume you're saying 25% on top of that. That's a square 3Ghz. Do they have that kind of headroom? I hope they do, but they have <i>not</i> "just shown" that....

None of the review sites I saw could do 3Ghz with overclocked 90nm A64 samples; they would manage 2.6Ghz, 2.7Ghz at most. Where did you get 25% from? And don't say liquid nitrogen cooling; P4s can do 6Ghz on that!
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Mephistopheles on 10/21/04 02:04 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
 
64bit on the desktop shouldnt excite a soul with a brain.
While I might agree that the hype has far exceeded the benefits we got up until now, I don't think you can honestly say that. 64-bit mode brings along a performance benefit in some cases and enables a lot of things that couldn't be done otherwise. So what I'm saying is - say that again in 3 years.
Its pretty clear that AMD never could keep up production wise..
They would have - and are actually having - a hard time. They've never had to meet the demands they're meeting now. But nothing is to stop them from keeping up production wise. It will, however, take time to match Intel's production infrastructure.
which i dont entirely believe quite YET (i know AMD has a shrink coming soon and intel does too sometime as well)..
then cache is the short term answer. That solution, IF amd is stuck to doing it with Intel.. is a losing game.. and fast.
You missed a lot of things there. First, AMD has just finished a rather successful shrink to 90nm. Intel's next shrink (65nm) will only come by 2H05 at best, and that's not too soon. Intel is resorting to cache because it is taking a very violent beating performance-wise and feature-wise. So it cannot be called a losing game for AMD; they're miles ahead already....
once AMD is stuck to the cache method of improving performance,
Who said that? AMD isn't stuck! Intel is!
 
The 3ghz is from Tom's review of the 90 nanos. Since thier lowest bined chips seem good to 2.6, I dont find any fault with what Shmidt and Topelt said at the bottum of this page <A HREF="http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041019/index.html" target="_new">http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041019/index.html</A>.
 
Reality check. Amd has been shipping chips with 1 meg of cache, for over a year. Intel is stalled at 3.6, while Amd has just shown they have 25% more headroom. Amd has caught up even in the "built for Intel" progs.
Look, I know you want your god, intel, to rule, and she will again. Just not for a year or two.

They do not have 1meg of cache on even close to their entire product line..

until the 4000+ it was a FX feature only.
What I meant was, intel can put 1mb on every processor (prescott).. AMD can't and remain competitive.

If they could produce as many A64s (of all speeds) with 1MB and produce as many of those as intel does 1MB prescotts, I'd poop in your mouth for you.
I dont think they could afford to put 1MB on their entire consumer line (minus the budget sempron line) and remain in the black.

Lets not get out of hand here... AMD is still a production gnat while Intel is a production giant. Its all flags and glory for AMD fans but its still in comparison a tiny organization. All it would take is their flash business to take a nice dive and hey-day is over. And i dont want that, i like the products that are resulting from this competition.
my next PC is most likely a FX55 (just waiting for the NF4)..