- Status
[citation][nom]Dirtman73[/nom]Even if the P4 was more advanced than the Athlon 64 (which it wasn't; saying it was WAY more advanced goes beyond silly), it wouldn't have mattered anyway. Even taking into account the P4's flaws, it wouldn't have mattered anyway. The truth of the matter is that the Athlon 64 was a superior chip, and Intel fanboiz STILL can't get over that fact. It's only a matter of time before AMD comes out with another Intel killer.[/citation]
I sense you don't know much about this stuff.
The Pentium 4 was an extremely advanced design, that, in practice, didn't work so great. The Athlon 64 was very straightforward, but not particularly great, but benefited from the Pentium 4 sucking so bad.
The Athlon 64 didn't even schedule instructions as well as the 1995 Pentium Pro. The Barcelona added that. They still don't have complete memory disambiguation like Intel has since the Conroe.
The Pentium 4 had the trace cache, monstrous clock speeds, super-pipelining, double-pumped ALUs, quad-pumped memory bus, partial memory disambiguation, and Hyper-threading. Keep in mind the 3.8 GHz Pentium 4 was running the ALU at 7.6 GHz.
The Athlon 64 was a prosaic design. It wasn't great, but it wasn't horrible. The proof is it looked good against a bad processor, and then got raped by a good one (Conroe).
My point being, AMD's processors only looked so good because Intel's were so bad. In reality, they never matched Intel in mobile because of this as well.
That isn't the case now. Intel processors are very good. But, AMD doesn't need to beat them, just close the gap a lot, and keep the size down. They need to cut down things that aren't used much anymore, like x87, and go less brute force and more predictive to gain efficiency. I hope they cut down on things that use transistors inefficiently, as well as adding more to it. If they just add, they're going to still be less efficient.
I guess we'll see.
I sense you don't know much about this stuff.
The Pentium 4 was an extremely advanced design, that, in practice, didn't work so great. The Athlon 64 was very straightforward, but not particularly great, but benefited from the Pentium 4 sucking so bad.
The Athlon 64 didn't even schedule instructions as well as the 1995 Pentium Pro. The Barcelona added that. They still don't have complete memory disambiguation like Intel has since the Conroe.
The Pentium 4 had the trace cache, monstrous clock speeds, super-pipelining, double-pumped ALUs, quad-pumped memory bus, partial memory disambiguation, and Hyper-threading. Keep in mind the 3.8 GHz Pentium 4 was running the ALU at 7.6 GHz.
The Athlon 64 was a prosaic design. It wasn't great, but it wasn't horrible. The proof is it looked good against a bad processor, and then got raped by a good one (Conroe).
My point being, AMD's processors only looked so good because Intel's were so bad. In reality, they never matched Intel in mobile because of this as well.
That isn't the case now. Intel processors are very good. But, AMD doesn't need to beat them, just close the gap a lot, and keep the size down. They need to cut down things that aren't used much anymore, like x87, and go less brute force and more predictive to gain efficiency. I hope they cut down on things that use transistors inefficiently, as well as adding more to it. If they just add, they're going to still be less efficient.
I guess we'll see.
bombat1994
Distinguished
- Feb 8, 2010
- 104
- 0
- 18,690
cyberkuberiah
Distinguished
- May 5, 2009
- 812
- 0
- 19,010
jimmysmitty
Champion
- Oct 5, 2007
- 21,595
- 595
- 59,140
[citation][nom]lradunovic77[/nom]As soon as AMD take performance crown it will change, hopefully with Buldozzer.[/citation]
Except Bulldozer needs to take on Sandy Bridge. Its not like they will only have Nehalem to worry about. Intel isn't sitting on their laurels like they did in the P4 days anymore. They are on top of it and SB even got moved up ahead of schedule.
After SB 22nm comes out in 2011.
[citation][nom]jitpublisher[/nom]But when will that be, we have been hearing about this mythical "bulldozer" for what, 3 years now?[/citation]
Longer than that. I think it was supposed to start after K8s release.
Bulldozer had better be one amazing arch cuz its not going to have it easy against SB.
Except Bulldozer needs to take on Sandy Bridge. Its not like they will only have Nehalem to worry about. Intel isn't sitting on their laurels like they did in the P4 days anymore. They are on top of it and SB even got moved up ahead of schedule.
After SB 22nm comes out in 2011.
[citation][nom]jitpublisher[/nom]But when will that be, we have been hearing about this mythical "bulldozer" for what, 3 years now?[/citation]
Longer than that. I think it was supposed to start after K8s release.
Bulldozer had better be one amazing arch cuz its not going to have it easy against SB.
eddieroolz
Splendid
- Sep 6, 2008
- 7,057
- 0
- 25,860
[citation][nom]SteveLord[/nom]AMD hasn't had the performance crown in years. Since then, they've been making CPUs that are the same speed (and sometimes slower) than Intel's CPUs of last year.They've even stated in the past that they are no longer in that kind of market. They sure as hell don't have the manpower or it anyway.And it really doesn't matter what Intel prices their CPUs if they are faster. Because someone WILL pay money to have the faster product. Just like all the Core i7 users have been doing.[/citation]
--------------
i will always buy the best price/performance product i can buy and intel hasn't released one of those is some time. AMD, since socket A has allowed the user to upgrade CPU's without a different mobo and intel seems to have done the opposite since the PIII/p4 days. i'm getting a phenom over an intel because i can upgrade to a hex core without buying a new mobo and RAM.
--------------
i will always buy the best price/performance product i can buy and intel hasn't released one of those is some time. AMD, since socket A has allowed the user to upgrade CPU's without a different mobo and intel seems to have done the opposite since the PIII/p4 days. i'm getting a phenom over an intel because i can upgrade to a hex core without buying a new mobo and RAM.
[citation][nom]thebigt42[/nom]I'm with you...I just got:ASUS P6X58D Premium Desktop Motherboard Intel Core i7 930 2.80GHz Quad Core 8 Gig of Kingston 1333MHz DDR3-1333 RamFor the lest than the cost of 1 of these processors. I don't get it[/citation]
what??? no triple channel??? fail! 😀
what??? no triple channel??? fail! 😀
"noone" needed the dual core when it first came out and now everyone is begging for the hexacore to drop it's price lol
agnickolov
Distinguished
- Aug 10, 2006
- 520
- 0
- 18,980
Anyone else got confused by the missing X at the end (for hexacore)? It looks like a quad core with this name.
How did this guy get a job writing for a hardware site. The 980x, has an unlocked multiplier, and is relatively easy to get a stable overclock around 4.4ghz, while other hardware sites are having trouble getting a 970 over 4ghz and stable. So that $100 gets you some good OC headroom; and who is not overclocking a $900 chip!
Who is not oc'n a 900$ cput.. UM BUSINESSES! DUH! Seriously man think before you speak. Companies arn't gonna oc a cpu as others stated simply because it voids the warranty. And smart people *even though they obviously have cash to burn* still ain't gonna void the warranty just to oc it when there is no sense to it.
Who is gonna over clock a 900$ spu.. People looking at numbers.. That's pretty much it.
Who is gonna over clock a 900$ spu.. People looking at numbers.. That's pretty much it.
Dirtman73
Distinguished
- Sep 11, 2009
- 382
- 0
- 18,790
[citation][nom]ta152h[/nom]I sense you don't know much about this stuff.The Pentium 4 was an extremely advanced design, that, in practice, didn't work so great. The Athlon 64 was very straightforward, but not particularly great, but benefited from the Pentium 4 sucking so bad. The Athlon 64 didn't even schedule instructions as well as the 1995 Pentium Pro. The Barcelona added that. They still don't have complete memory disambiguation like Intel has since the Conroe.The Pentium 4 had the trace cache, monstrous clock speeds, super-pipelining, double-pumped ALUs, quad-pumped memory bus, partial memory disambiguation, and Hyper-threading. Keep in mind the 3.8 GHz Pentium 4 was running the ALU at 7.6 GHz. The Athlon 64 was a prosaic design. It wasn't great, but it wasn't horrible. The proof is it looked good against a bad processor, and then got raped by a good one (Conroe). My point being, AMD's processors only looked so good because Intel's were so bad. In reality, they never matched Intel in mobile because of this as well.[/citation]
You've completely and utterly made my point for me. You're basically saying that Intel's tech was superior to AMD's, but Intel's tech sucked so badly that AMD's tech couldn't help but look superior. WTF dude?
You've completely and utterly made my point for me. You're basically saying that Intel's tech was superior to AMD's, but Intel's tech sucked so badly that AMD's tech couldn't help but look superior. WTF dude?
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question Can my PC handle a NVIDA 3060 TI without upgrading anything else?
- Started by hexzero13
- Replies: 22
-
-
News Introducing the Tom’s Hardware Premium Beta: Exclusive content for members
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 43
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram