Intel hit 1 ghz first?

[Atolsammeek]

Reading this from one of my tech books March of 2000 was the release dates of Amd K7 900Mhz to 1 ghz.

Amd k7900mnr53b Model 2, speed 900ghz, Bus speed 100x2, Multipler 9x, 512kb L2 cache, 300 mhz L2 speed, 1.80, voltage Max Power 60w .18 Mircron, 22m transisters, March 2000

Amd k7950mnr53b Model 2, speed 950 ghz, Bus speed 100x2, Multipler 9.5x, 512kb L2 cache, 317 mhz L2 speed, 1.80 voltage, Max Power
62w, .18 Mircron, 22m transisters, March 2000

Amd K71000mnr53b Model 2, speed 1000 ghz, Bus speed 100x2 Multiplier 10x, 512kb L2 cache, 333 Mhz L2 speed, 1.80 Voltage, Max Power 65w,
.18 Mircons, 22m Transisters, March 2000

In in the Book Upgrading and repairing PCs 16 edtion it says In Most benchmarks the amd athlon compares as equal, If not superior, to the intel pentium III Amd beat Intel to the 1ghz Mark by Introducing its 1Ghz Athlon two days Before Intel Introduced the 1 ghz Pentium III And Intel P4 came out in November of 2000

 

[intelamduser]

http://www.pcworld.com/resource/article/0,aid,15810,pg,1,00.asp

This is a pretty good article which has a good timeline of events.

 

[Era]

Intel did brake the 1GHz barrier first, but they had call all of them back back because they were acting funny.
So the THG chart is flawed. It is a piece of rewritten history.

 

[Steele]

This is the point I've been trying to make: an error is not re-written history. Is it really likely that they did this intentionally?

Steele

 

[mpjesse]

Sorry to burst your bubble jesse, but I'm guessing living that close to an N weapons site has affected your memory. It was a socket A chip that Amd came out with.

Wait. Look at this. Could it be? Yep, it's an ebay auction for a SLOT A 1Ghz AMD Athlon K7 CPU.

http://cgi.ebay.com/AMD-K7-1Ghz-Slot-1-A-model_W0QQitemZ6825467273QQcategoryZ15919QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Oh look, here's two more auctions for the thunderbird version of the Slot A 1Ghz CPU (these came AFTER the first K7 1Ghz CPU).

http://cgi.ebay.com/Rare-AMD-Athlon-1-Ghz-Slot-A-CPU-with-Heatsink-Fan_W0QQitemZ6824810101QQcategoryZ15919QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

http://cgi.ebay.com/AMD-Athlon-1000Mhz-Slot-A-with-fans_W0QQitemZ6825134005QQcategoryZ44935QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

I actually owned the 1Ghz Slot A K7 CPU. AMD went to Socket A (with the thunderbird) several months after this 1Ghz Slot A K7 came out.

I guess my memory hasn't been affected by Los Alamos National Labratories... yet. 🙂

-mpjesse

 

[endyen]

This is the point I've been trying to make: an error is not re-written history

An error that omits an entire line of processors, and a years worth of another, in a supposed tech sight, is like a swimmer forgetting thier suit, or you without photoshop

Is it really likely that they did this intentionally?

Yes.

Go to any reasonable site, and read a review about an A64 chip. See how it compares to Intel chips. Then go and see how they compare on the interactive cpu charts.
Does anyone know where the thread about the cpu stress test is?

 

[Atolsammeek]

What bad is all the Intel fanboys think they Know everything. I remember. When I had my p3 600mhz and going I want a Amd 1ghz when it frist came out. At the time I was saying Intel and Amd will keep leap frogging each other in there speed race.

It was like Amd was winning untel it was into Amd 1900+ Then Intel had the crown. Untel Amd released the Amd 64. Then for Intel to try to match there speed Put out P4 ee 2mb L3 cache cpu. Then it was leap frog from then on. So far Amd wins as of now.

I also remember People Who was going Ghz means everything and everyone who own a amd system saying it did not. Then they going Amd is going to fall like Cyrix did do to the fact of the pr rating.

 

[Steele]

Endeyen:

If that is your opinion, fair enough. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then.

About the second part of your post, though...
Is AnandTech also a Intel-centered site?
Compare the A64 3800 and P4 640 in this benchmark...
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2484&p=10
... relative to the interactive chart on THG.

What about Extremetech.com?
Again, compare this chart to the one on THG...
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1876715,00.asp

Specifically, compare the P4 640 and AMD64 3800 on all three charts and Doom III. If THG is really out to spite AMD that much, would these charts all agree? Or are all three sites in Intel's pocket?

Steele

 

[endyen]

I had expected you would use to chips that were a little closer, but ok. I cant get to extremetech right now, but let's compare Anand and Toms. In D 3, they bothe have the intel chip ~ 84 fps. Anand has the Amd chip at 102.6, while Tom's has it at 92.6 Wonder why the diference? Coincedence right?

 

[Teh_Catman]

Still with this arguement huh. Simply put AMD's Slot A Athlon was the first chip to ship in volume in the X86 market at 1ghz Period. On March 6 2000 AMD announced there 1ghz chip, Intel announced theres on March 8 2000. At the very least AMD beat Intel to market and produce 1ghz chips (in volume that didnt need to be recalled).

EDIT: Info comes from a Maximum PC magazine from May 2000, where the author claims it was written March 16. They had 2 AMD 1ghz systems (1 Compaq, 1 AMD reference system) but they couldn't get an Intel 1 ghz for comparison (maybe tom had them all LOL).

 

[endyen]

At the time the article was written, the fastest available Intel chip was 800mhz, while Amd had an 800, an 850, a 900, a 950, and the 1ghz chip.
I wonder why intel didn't have anything in between?

 

[Teh_Catman]

Wasn't Intels fastest at the time an 866Mhz Coppermine?

EDIT: No sorry your right I was giving Intel too much credit 800EB was their fastest chip at the time.

 

[Steele]

Given the margin of error of these benchmarks, I would expect that a difference of less than 10% would be acceptable. If Toms is Intel-biased enough to completely leave out an entire earth-shaking product line, why wouldn't they skew these benchmarks a little further?

Steele

 

[pat]

The point he seemed to be making to me, is that because Intel had displayed an overclocked chip, the chart should stand as a valid historic representation.
Speaking of which, do you believe the chart to be historicly accurate?
How do you feel about it?

If Intel and AMD were building plane in a race for a 1000 place airplane, in the same way that 1 GHz CPU made their debut, then the news would be:
" Intel took their 800 places airplane, removed luggage space and toilets to make more room for people. They were able to put a 1000 people in the air, but only for few minutes, because some started to pee in their pants and some other were suffocating because of the lack of passenger space. A few day later, AMD has their 1000 places airplane in a flight around the world with 1000 peoples comfortably sat. Strong with this succes, they started to make project for 1100, 1200,1300 and 1400 places airplaine. While Intel, was the first to put 1000 in the air, the lack of comfort in their design prohibited the chance for bigger airplaine any sooner. To remain competitive, their new design add float to their 800 place airplane and installed seats on the wing. While slower, this would allow for more seated places... The new boat is called Willamette" [/troll]

 

[Teh_Catman]

Given the margin of error of these benchmarks, I would expect that a difference of less than 10% would be acceptable. If Toms is Intel-biased enough to completely leave out an entire earth-shaking product line, why wouldn't they skew these benchmarks a little further?

Steele

Um, I seem to be lost what product line did toms leave out? [rest of post removed to avoid arguement]

 

[endyen]

The Slot A product line ended about where Tom's has Amd going after 550mhz, or K6-2.

 

[Teh_Catman]

The Slot A product line ended about where Tom's has Amd going after 550mhz, or K6-2.

Slot A was up to 1.1 Ghz (maybe more but definatly not less) Socket A replaced that. Wasnt the K6-3 the 550 (no matter since AMD was crap till they bought NexGen (best tech buy in history)).

 

[endyen]

Given the margin of error of these benchmarks, I would expect that a difference of less than 10% would be acceptable.

Congratulations, since most of the benchmarks between A64 3000/ p4 3ghz and A64 4000/ P4 3.8ghz are within 10%, you have negated all of Tom's benchmarking. Since 10% means so little to you, just give us 10% of your money.

 

[Teh_Catman]

I second that, Endyen can have 7% I'll take 3%. ROFL.

EDIT: Ok 80/20 LOL

 

[endyen]

They dont do visual presentations well, thier benchmarks are out by 10%, is there any reason to believe anything Tom's says?

 

[Teh_Catman]

They dont do visual presentations well, thier benchmarks are out by 10%, is there any reason to believe anything Tom's says?

Well ya, we need to believe Toms so that we dont become AMD fanboys.

Sorry best reason I can come up with.

 

[Steele]

The point is that if you assume a 5% margin of error, all the varied results (on different hardware, no less) for the AMD 3800 are within that range. I'm not saying that this is the case; I don't know. All I'm saying is that the differences are very slight, and cannot really support very many conclusions.

Teh_Catman: The original post is a complaint that the THG cpu chart from 1993 to present leaves out the first 1Ghz chip. The debate has since evolved into whether or not THG is an evil hate-mongering anti-AMD bunch of Commies or a legitimate hardware guide.

If you really want, I'll give you 3% of my money, plus or minus 5% any day. You owe me up to 2% of my money.

Steele

 

[Teh_Catman]

No the original post was if Intel or AMD got to 1ghz first. I am simply saying that AMD was at 1ghz way before Intel (production chips and availability without recalls). It quickly turned into a "toms is in Intels lap" topic but thats not what I am commenting on (minus the jokes at you).

EDIT: And who said +/- 5%

EDIT AGAIN: Ok so I'm blind the first post was about Tom's skipping the Athlon Slot A procs. That just makes me hate Tom's more. I honestly thought this was a real discussion on who got to 1 ghz first.

 

[endyen]

The point is that if you assume a 5% margin of error,

5%, or 10%? What is the point of averaging multiple runs with that high an error factor?
How would your customers feel if the work were 90% right?
This sight isn't supposed to be a bunch of amateurs fooling around. The people who make up these reviews are suppsed to be profesional journalists.

 

[Steele]

The difference between the two AMD benchmarks mentioned above (AnandTech and THG) is less than 10%, with THG's mark coming in at the bottom. Hence, a 5% margin of error between the two of them. That's where the 5% comes from.

However, the two benchmarks were determined by running two different sets of hardware with likely different stuff running in the background.

Steele