if it seems i am bias to intel

[ME BIGGD01]

i just want you to know i have worked on every kind of system that has been released in the past 8 years and never have i seen such a dramatic bunch of enhancements for a desktop system. i am not bias towards intel but since i like to look at what i am getting in full, this is the reason i have to stick with the amd platform. i have dealt with it departments that talk about amd like it's the plague but most of them like the field today are a bunch of morons that never test anything new because they do not have the skills to fix or test anything. safe may always be good but it does not enhance anything or evolve anything. i took my first chance with an amd k62 300 and ever since then i have followed the amd market. technolgy changes very fast and with amd, i have always got my money worth.

what' wrong with intel?
well let's look at there past and always tactics.
when amd released the athlon it kicked the hell out the p3. intel started rushing out changes to try to beat amd to a 1ghz chip but lost to the athlon 1 ghz chip. intel screwed many people with the 820 chipset which was a recalled product and then rushed out another product 1.13 ghz p3 which was also recalled. intel was in trouble now as amd a small company that can fit in intels back pocket, has taken the cpu lead and built a better product than the chip king intel. intel could not stand this and rushed out the new chip called a p4. this chip was a disgrace and a dog. sure it had more mhz than amd but it a p4 a 1.6ghz actually got beat by a p3 1ghz chip. this chip was not cheap either. the p4 was still no match for the athlon thunderbird series which was released from intel after the first p4 release. amd still had the better product. intel then released the p4 w/533fsb which was an improvement with the xtra cache and faster bus but amd released the xp chip which was still faster than intel's latest p4 chip, just not as much. intel's chip was still much more expensive with really no benefit other than apps that supported sse2. it also took several more mhz to pass a amd xp chip. intel then released the 800fsb which then took the lead at a premium price. amd also released the barton core but i myself got mad at amd because they were kind of cheating with their pr rating scheme. this is the only thing that i do not like about the xp chips because the pr is not accurate to the later xp chips and suggest people to becarefull on purchasing one because it gets tricky. intel's 800fsb chips were the king of the crop for the past year by small margins but was the leader as they ramped out the mhz. they were expensive but that's what you have to pay for if you want the best. amd then released the athlon 64 series of chips after being delayed to work out bugs(they actually released the opteron first but i will not discuss the server chips here). this was september and the same day intel paper launched the p4ee processor. the athlon64 series is a big improvement and whoops the p4 line. you can now buy an intel p4ee if you can find one but expect to pay almost 1000.00 dollars for it. like i said if you can find one. the p4ee is a remarked xeon processor with a total of 3mg of cache on it and for that much money you would expect to have the fastest chip. this is not the case as the fx chip out performs it in almost every benchmark. intel has delayed their prescott chip due to heat issues. this chip will be released feb-march 04 but will also take that with a grain of salt. i think they knew that it would be a failure on top of being recalled due to it's heat. amd is going strong with their amd64 series and is now only getting faster with more and more tweaks to the platform.

intel's tactics--they have more money than anyone and use it's money to pursuade stores and even vendors to stop selling amd products. they also payoff benchmark suites to alter the code to benefit the intel chips. they are also known to threaten company's to not make chipsets (like they did with the first athlon chips) which hurts those who want a better platform. these company's make alot of money off intel and get scared from the threats because the marketing intel does is large in the world. this robs you and i of the truth and makes people ignorant to technology. how many times has good technology been thrown away because of larger company's money and power? i try to educate many who think that intel or microsoft is what makes a computer. thank god cars are not based on the same tactics---ummm well i guess they are also :bandhead:

now when i hear amd is buggy from a no brain schmuck and also they tell me that intel makes a better cpu, i just wonder how they can say such a thing. i mean when has amd had products recalled? also does price actually make a cpu better? is it really worth for a mom and dad to spend over 1000 dollars on a marketeted piece of crap?

look at other countries such as china and germany etc etc. they are using amd and linux more and more and i do not think it's because they are not smarter than the usa, maybe just the opposite. most americans based their purchases on the advertised products with out the research needed. ever notice how much advertisements you look at in a day? i think people need to be protected by every purchase they make even if it's a loaf of bread by doing their own research. this will teach large company's to learn people are smarter than they think and we as consumers will get more efficient products.


i would like to know how you feel or experiences with either platfrom.

ME BIGGD01

[OUTLAWS Tip]

I've never had an Intel system. My first sytem was a hand me down 486 cyrix (sp). I had to add a cd-rom, sound card and found it was a pretty easy process. I next got another hand me down 200 Amd system a buddy had built, and I got it when he put together his new system. I decided I would learn to build my own computer and started research on getting A+ certified. I bought a couple books and took tons of online practice tests and then took the test. I did so well on the test the guy at the testing place asked where I took classes. I laughed and said I bought a couple books, read some newsgroups and took online practice tests. I got the books from a book club for $50. If I had bought them at a book store it would have been over $100. I laugh now when I see classes for A+ certification that cost in the neighborhood of $2000. I spent $50 and did very well on it. :)

I decided to start by buying a barebones system and finished it off to give to my dad. That was my practice system. (AMD 600) That went fairly smooth so after that I decided to build my new pc. Did a bunch of research and then decided on the Athlon 1.33. Had that about a year and then decided to build an xp system so I picked up the Athlon 2100+ @ 1800 that I am using now. The new system is faster but kind of a waste as it is not that much faster than my old pc. I now have put in to place a new personal policy that I won't upgrade till I can double my processor speed.

Looks like the AMD 64 is just what the doctor ordered and will be building one sometime next year. Probably later in the year when the processors get to 4 ghz.

:cool:

[Scorch]

Wow, I just read the whole thing. :wacko:

[DiTomasso]

Only Intel. Never had any problems no reason to switch.
:wave:

[Slice]

The only thing I have to say about it is freedom of competition. As it stands now both companies latest chips are about the same price for the same performance. So in retrospect do you not think that AMD was trying to catch up to Intel so they could take a bigger piece of the market? I mean come on, it only makes perfect sence....

[OUTLAWS high ping camper]

amd and pentium = apples and oranges

Most consumers set out to buy a new PC and mistakenly assume that Intel's Pent4 is faster than the Athlon because it's clock speed is so much higher. In fact, the Pent4 needs those higher clock speeds just to offer comparible performance to an Athlon (as a result of the Pent4's extremely long data pipeline).

As a CPU processes data, it chops them into packets and sends them through a type of assembly line, called a pipline. The more steps in the assembly line, the faster each step, or stage, can be completed because less work needs to be performed in each stage.

In a longer pipeline, executed data often has to be thrown out and reproccesed, and it takes more clock cycles to refill with data when that happens. Data has to be purged from a pipeline because modern CPUs are many times faster than the system memory that sends the data to them, so processors just guess which pieces of data will be sent next.

This process of guessing data is a complicated practice called branch prediction. The Pentium 4's 20-stage pipeline allows the chip to hit very high frequencies, but it also results in a higher performance penalty when a missed prediction occurs.

The Athlon 64 features a 12-stage pipeline, and so suffers less of a performance hit when it predicts incorrectly, because there isn't as much data in the pipeline to recompile. In addition, a shorter pipeline can often execute more instructions per clock cycle, since data doesn't have to pass through so many stages before being fully executed.

This is the primary reason why a 2.2-Ghz Athlon 64 FX-51 can offer superior performance to a 3.3 Ghz-Pent4. The Pent4 streams data along at up to 3.2 Ghz, but each piece of data has to pass through 20 steps beore it's completely executed. The AMD 64 has to pass data through only 12 steps.

Branch prediction is just one tool a CPU uses to overcome the slow speed of the system memory to offer higher real-world performance. The large L1 and L2 caches that the Athlon 64 and Pent4 use to speed the flow of data from system RAM also complement the branch prediction.

However, without knowing anything about pipeline lengths, branch prediction algorithms, and cache size, consumers continue to buy PC's based on the clock speed of their CPUs. To fight that, AMD has adopted a model numbering system that roughly, and indirectly, equates the performance of an Athlon with a Pentium 4 at a particular clock speed (i.e. the AMD 64 3200+ and the 3.2-GHz Pent4), but this doesn't seem to be gaining much traction with PC buyers.

As a result, AMD may be forced to engineer it's future processors with roughly the same number of pipeline stages as Intel's chips. Although shorter pipelines may be more efficient and actually yield higher performance, that's not of much help to AMD if no one recognizes the benefit. With more stages in it's pipeline, there's no reason that the next version of the Athlon shouldn't match or exceed the clock speed of the Pentium 4 at the end.

Adding stages isn't all about marketing, though. With branch prediction rates now more than 90 percent accurate for both the Pent4 and the Athlon 64, the drawback to using a longer pipeline is decreasing. As missed prediction rates continue to drop, the performance hit to a long pipeline will drop as well.


Thank God I know how to type.......I just copied this article out of a magazine, tried scanning it ....but that wasn't working well enough.

Hope you enjoyed the article. :)

[DiTomasso]

great comparison 64 bit amd to 32 bit pentium. :rofl:

[DiTomasso]

Nice typing btw HPC :thumbs:

[Grimmy]

Good reads. I can't believe I read all of that, but very good info :thumbs:

[Fragetti]

Thanks for all the good DD guy's :jammin:

[PimpDaddy]

Thanks for the posts everyone......I will be in the market next spring and these are the kind of posts I need to read. I've always used intel and havent had problems, but that doesn't mean I wont try amd.......

[Death-Dude]

I think that's mostly fair comment. Bigg. Of course, you can't blame any company for trying to increase or protect their market share, but some of those tactics are just thuggery, and are very bad for us consumers. MS was doing the same thing with several companies, including big boys like HP - saying that if they were to put out boxes with Linux on them - and even less specific, putting out boxes with no OS - that they might pull their license for Win 95, as it was at that time, or not give them as good of discounts. They got spanked for those tactics, lightly. Intel also made a move to buy AMD when they were in cash trouble once, didn't they? In pre-K6 days?
Those bully tactics are dirty pool, no doubt. It certainly inspires no love for Intel, but when I buy a chip, I just look at what I pay for what I get. I plan to get an A64 rig at some time, but if Intel has a chip out there to make me go their way at that time, I'll sure look at it. I do favor AMD, and I think it would be best for us end-users if both companies were more equal in power - maybe someday.

[OUTLAWS high ping camper]

Originally posted by DiTomasso@Nov 23 2003, 02:21 AM
Nice typing btw HPC :thumbs:
;) thank you!

[ME BIGGD01]

:thumbs: