LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksToo costly probably... Larger distances involved for system memory.
Too costly probably... Larger distances involved for system memory.
I don't mean to sound cold, or cruel, or vicious, but I am so that's the way it comes out.
Because it wouldn't do any good unless you had CPUs that could take advantage of it. Right now we don't.Originally Posted by |SilentDeath|
I think people eneed to balance it they still sell a lot more product than AMD - so are still doing well. I have seen some dual core benchmarks and they look impressive. Enough to get back? Not sure.
At the end of the day it depends what you want the system for - offices with 200 systems may like the Intel stability program etc.
Also Intel do have a habbit of killing things which aren't working for them - Maybe Itanium isn't selling millions of CPUs but they are making money from it. Don't believe all of the sensational news you read.
Yes AMD are doing really great - but the bigger picture is important too.
In the bigger picture, Intel were touting Itanium as the way forward for server and workstation markets; they've only had one partner - HP - selling workstations and they killed that product line off last year. Itanium was a joint HP/Intel project anyway, with a lot of the R&D being done by Carly's boys and girls. Even after killing off the Alpha, HP still couldn't persuade a huge number of people to adopt Itanium, or indeed Itanium 2; they simply weren't making enough off it to justify the continuation of the R&D.
I find it suggestive that after months (nay, years) of official denials that Intel were planning an X86-64 product, and that Itanium was the way 64-bit would arrive, their major partner has dumped the R&D back in their lap, and they've (pretty rapidly) brought an X86-64 product to market, and are looking to expand it into exactly the same areas (workstations and servers) that Itanium was supposed to be initially targeted at.
At the moment, they're still shifting a lot more product than AMD; but the majority of that is 32-bit product. If we take into account that AMD are also planning to intro multi-cored chips this year, and by all accounts around the same time as Intel, then I don't think that multiple cores'll necessarily be an all round win for Intel.
Also, if we look at product actually being shifted, AMD have been shifting 64-bit on the desktop since when? And Intel are only scheduled to introduce it on the desktop later this year.
Last edited by nichomach; 11-01-2005 at 05:08 PM.
It's not really that. A 256-bit memory controller is a lot of transistors in the main, making the bridge chip, which the Taiwanese mainboard vendors are notoriously stingy about, or the CPU bigger and much more expensive.Because it wouldn't do any good unless you had CPUs that could take advantage of it. Right now we don't.
Cost and die size reasons are the main reason why we don't have wide memory paths in current PCs, rather than a CPU that can't take advantage. That side of the equation is much easier to relatively balance.
Rys
MOLLY AND POPPY!
Still, none of this 64bit talk is really significal until we see a 64bit OS and 64bit apps.
PHP Code:$s = new signature();
$s->sarcasm()->intellect()->font('Courier New')->display();
Linux is 64 bit ready Kez and so are some of the main apps for it.
I'm typing this on an A64 3500+ Winchester / Asus A8N-SLI with dual 6600GTs which has been running Windows XP 64 for a month. Another of my machines has been running XP 64 for a few months. Even my Windows Explorer is 64 bit. I don't have any retail 64 bit games yet but I've a couple of beta versions. They are pretty impressive. People who go with a non-AMD64 system for gaming are going to be sad.
Kez: To me the best thing about the AMD64 is that it is stronger than Intel's 32 bit chips on 32 bit apps. The 64 bit capability is just a bonus.
Intel has advertised a strained silicon process. We'll have to see how it compares to AMD's. In AMD's case it's pretty dramatic. The A64 FX-55 runs easily at 2900MHz+ on air cooling. Anyone who has experienced the power of the FX-53 running at 2400MHz doesn't need to be told what another 500MHz does given the well documented scalability of Athlon 64s. It will be interesting to see what affect the better mfg process has on Intel's chips.
Back to topic though, 64 bit is here and is not going away. That's why even Intel had to give in and produce Xeons and Prescots with "EMT-64". This was no accident. Intel is "feeling" A64. It's too bad they stuck with their same old agenda though. Rather than making a truly competitive and compatible CPU they simply took old tech and added 64 bit capability. Another quick fix designed to make the Intel faithful think Intel is offering a legit alternative to AMD64. Problem is, they are being dishonest to their customers. Those of us who understand that it is not the 64 bit capability that makes the AMD64 CPUs so fast, but the architectural differences and features like an on-die memory controller that give AMD the edge, can't help but think that Intel is again blowing smoke up our arses instead of actually making something truly cutting edge.
I'm sad because Intel doesn't seem to want to compete with AMD's current technology. Maybe they're putting all their focus on the multi-core stuff. AMD is working on multi-core stuff too. It would be good if Intel could beat AMD to the punch this time.
At the end of the day I am impressed you have had SLI for a month - longer than I have had mine and it came from Taiwan.
Anyway - push comes to shove, AMD issured a profit warning today.
I have an LGA775 3.4Ghz Presscott which is EM64T already.
Also MS have released RC1 of winxp64 now. So the final version isn't too far away.
Last edited by Capt Doufos; 11-01-2005 at 06:44 PM.
Its just like when there was only ddr, many graphics cards had ddr2, but that was very different to normal ddr2 we have today.
Anyway whats the point of ddr2? I would rather save £40 and get some ddr (based on a matched pair of 512mb sticks) Is there really any real difference apart from the price?
(this should be a bit further up, kinda missed to whole second page thing lol)
Last edited by nvening; 11-01-2005 at 07:33 PM.
Anyway the amd 64 is a much better CPU in 32bit apps than a pentium4 (apart from video editing) And MUCH better in games.
Which is because their flash memory sales have slumped in Q4 of 2004; conversely CPU sales appear to be rising, as indeed do their sales overall. However, margins on flash memory are pretty much wafer thin at the moment; look at the decline in prices for memory cards and flash drives.
If you wish to judge the quality and performance of a CPU by stock prices that is your right. IMO they are two completely different things.
I never said AMD was a financial giant, only that one of their product lines (their microprocessor) is superior to one of Intel's product lines. Profitability and CPU performance are obviously not related.
nvening:
The only video editing software that a P4 of any flavor beats an FX-55 in is one specifically optimized for the P4's HyperThreading and instructions. These programs exist but are not common. The FX-55 has no equal in the Intel world.
David:
Sorry, I rounded 22 days to a month. And both of mine came from Taiwan too! There are many importers and reps for ASUS here in California, some of whom send me stuff. I was one of the first to get an eVGA 6800 Ultra too. I wouldn't be too impressed though. I do this stuff a lot.
Last edited by StormPC; 11-01-2005 at 09:46 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
