Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 19

Thread: Amd?

  1. #1
    Big Member BlindMelon7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,190
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked
    1 time in 1 post

    Amd?

    My mate was slagging AMD off earlier today. He kept saying that Intel are gods etc. for making C2D. It pisses me off. What would be the point in making a processor thats faster than core 2? Only enthusiasts would buy it unless AMD spent one HELL of a lot on advertising. I think AMD are biding their time until we actually NEED more power or until we need something completely different. Otherwise AMD and Intel will continue their endless battle, constantly making more and more powerful processors until we're all using coolers like the one Hexus reviewed today. Am I right?
    With love and many thanks,

    Melons

  2. #2
    Senior Member kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    28,997
    Thanks
    1,473
    Thanked
    2,904 times in 2,353 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte X58A UD3R rev 2
      • CPU:
      • Intel Xeon X5680
      • Memory:
      • 12gb DDR3 2000
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GTX 1060 6GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 600W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2311H
      • Internet:
      • O2 8mbps
    The general public don't need processors faster than a 486.

    I'm afraid my opinion is with your mate to some extent. Intel have a faster processor that runs cooler and uses less power. AMD would produce something better if they could, no way would they bide their time and let Intel make all the money at their expense.

    The point about coolers is particularly wrong - AMD sucessfully gained market share for having a cooler processor than netburst - intel have hit back with the core 2 duo. Not only are processors getting faster, but power and heat is becoming a selling point as well. New processors now run much cooler than bartons and netbursts.
    Last edited by kalniel; 25-01-2007 at 09:22 PM.

  3. #3
    Senior Member this_is_gav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Alnwick, Northumberland
    Posts
    4,835
    Thanks
    175
    Thanked
    246 times in 213 posts
    • this_is_gav's system
      • Motherboard:
      • DFI DK X58-T3eH6
      • CPU:
      • Intel i7 920
      • Memory:
      • 12GB Corsair 1333MHz C9
      • Storage:
      • 2xRaptor 150GB (RAID0 300GB), 2.5TB permanent storage
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Nvidia GTX 560 Ti 1GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic X-series
      • Case:
      • Lian-Li A70B
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell 2408WFP
      • Internet:
      • 8M ADSL24
    If it were as simple as AMD making a better CPU they would have.

    It took Intel eons to comfortably beat off AMD (you could argue AMD was better all round all the way back to the first Athlon).

    AMD are trying so hard they're pushing QuadFX, which isn't looking too good at the moment, but will apparently be much improved when tested in Vista. That's how much they want to beat Intel, yet they're grasping at straws using 2 completely separate sockets.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    859
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked
    8 times in 8 posts
    I wish you were right. The truth is, Intel finally got the edge over AMD with the C2D CPUs which as well as outperform AMDs current offerings, but also run relatively cool as well.

    As for speed/power of the CPUs, to be honest a single core AMD CPU will run a decent system admirably at the moment. Once Vista becomes common this will probably change significantly. Every MS OS release and subsequent significant service pack adds additional bloatware which slows everything down.

    For example, at work I used to use a 2.8 P4 (S478 version). It initially came with XP SP1. Since adding SP2 and other corporate security stuff, it was grinding to a halt. I now use a P4 notebook running a mobile processor @ 1700 or something like that. Believe it or not, it actually outperforms the old machine by quite a margin.

  5. #5
    Big Member BlindMelon7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,190
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked
    1 time in 1 post
    But the quad core AMDs are only slightly slower than the Intels yet they are half the price.
    With love and many thanks,

    Melons

  6. #6
    Big Member BlindMelon7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,190
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked
    1 time in 1 post
    Quote Originally Posted by kalniel View Post
    The point about coolers is particularly wrong
    What I meant was that they will keep bringing out the same processor with a higher clock speed.
    With love and many thanks,

    Melons

  7. #7
    Senior Member kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    28,997
    Thanks
    1,473
    Thanked
    2,904 times in 2,353 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte X58A UD3R rev 2
      • CPU:
      • Intel Xeon X5680
      • Memory:
      • 12gb DDR3 2000
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GTX 1060 6GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 600W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2311H
      • Internet:
      • O2 8mbps
    Quote Originally Posted by BlindMelon7 View Post
    But the quad core AMDs are only slightly slower than the Intels yet they are half the price.
    I must be out of date already. Are you saying that you can get an quad core AMD for half the price of the excellent c2d 6600?

    What I meant was that they will keep bringing out the same processor with a higher clock speed.
    I don't think they will, for the reasons I mentioned.

  8. #8
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    9,712
    Thanks
    476
    Thanked
    994 times in 846 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 2600X
      • Memory:
      • 16GB 3200MHz
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Linux, 1TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 28 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Samsung 2343BW 2048x1152
      • Internet:
      • Zen 80Mb/20Mb VDSL
    My tuppence...

    AMD and Intel are both in this game to make money, not excellent processors.

    AMD had almost no market share, and changed that by producing an excellent processor, which was nice for us

    Only at the point that Intel's market share was dropping like a stone did it finally put it's internal company politics aside and bother making an even better processor than AMD. This is better for us

    Note that technically there was nothing to stop Intel making a core2 duo years ago. If they had enough market share, why would they bother?

    AMD had been gently improving their CPU to try and keep a slight lead. They could have made huge advances, but that costs money that comes out of profits.

    The answer to Core2 is Barcelona, and it sounds like that chip is already slowly making it's way down the production lines at the fabs. That takes a few months, so it will be out in the summer. Some of those improvements were hard, but I think some of them just took some more silicon which hurts profits so only now it is totally necessary have they added SSE units etc.

    To re-iterate, these processors get better if it helps the profits of the companies that make them. If there was no competition, I have no doubt Intel would still be making 486 chips and telling us we are lucky to have them.

  9. #9
    glaciation appreciation frazered's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Cheshire
    Posts
    718
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked
    16 times in 15 posts
    • frazered's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte GA-P35-DS4 (rev. 1.1)
      • CPU:
      • q6600 @ 3.06ghz
      • Memory:
      • 4GB crucial
      • Storage:
      • 4tb of hitachis
      • Graphics card(s):
      • GTX260
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX 520w
      • Case:
      • Antec p182
      • Operating System:
      • win7 64bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell 2007wfp
      • Internet:
      • BeUnlimited 16dn/1.2up attn 35db

  10. #10
    Will work for beer... nichomach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Preston, Lancs
    Posts
    6,133
    Thanks
    527
    Thanked
    137 times in 98 posts
    • nichomach's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte GA-870A-UD3
      • CPU:
      • AMD Phenom II X6 1055T 95W
      • Memory:
      • 16GB DR3
      • Storage:
      • 1x250GB Maxtor SATAII, 1x 400GB Hitachi SATAII
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Zotac GTX 1060 3GB
      • PSU:
      • Coolermaster 500W
      • Case:
      • Coolermaster Elite 430
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell 20" TFT
      • Internet:
      • Virgin Media Cable
    Interesting article, but the Gartner droid quoted has his head up his posterior; the server market is already ready for quad cores, and has been ever since MS confirmed their "we license by socket, not core" approach. The last server I bought was a Clovertowned Poweredge 2950, purely because I could buy a couple of processor licenses for SQL Server and put 8 cores to work on it. If AMD had beaten Intel to market w/quad core, I'd probably have gone with that; we have a 2xDC Opteron box running Exchange at the moment, which does a sterling job, but there simply was not a competing processor available from AMD at the time..

  11. #11
    Big Member BlindMelon7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,190
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked
    1 time in 1 post
    With love and many thanks,

    Melons

  12. #12
    Will work for beer... nichomach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Preston, Lancs
    Posts
    6,133
    Thanks
    527
    Thanked
    137 times in 98 posts
    • nichomach's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte GA-870A-UD3
      • CPU:
      • AMD Phenom II X6 1055T 95W
      • Memory:
      • 16GB DR3
      • Storage:
      • 1x250GB Maxtor SATAII, 1x 400GB Hitachi SATAII
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Zotac GTX 1060 3GB
      • PSU:
      • Coolermaster 500W
      • Case:
      • Coolermaster Elite 430
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell 20" TFT
      • Internet:
      • Virgin Media Cable
    But...you need two of 'em, in a QuadFX board. To get my 8 cores, I'd need 4 (each requiring a SQL processor license at 3 grand a pop...) which you can't do anyway. Effectively, I'd need 4 DC Opterons in a four-way server. Ulp.

  13. #13
    Banned Smokey21's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Stafford, Midlands
    Posts
    1,752
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    Your mate is a looser.

    We could of said the same thing about the AMD 64, when it first came out.

    AMD ass raped Intel for 3 years with the K8.

  14. #14
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    9,712
    Thanks
    476
    Thanked
    994 times in 846 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 2600X
      • Memory:
      • 16GB 3200MHz
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Linux, 1TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 28 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Samsung 2343BW 2048x1152
      • Internet:
      • Zen 80Mb/20Mb VDSL
    Horses for courses?

    4 DC opterons is a hell of a lot of memory (and PCIe) bandwidth, but for a lot of money too!

  15. #15
    Will work for beer... nichomach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Preston, Lancs
    Posts
    6,133
    Thanks
    527
    Thanked
    137 times in 98 posts
    • nichomach's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte GA-870A-UD3
      • CPU:
      • AMD Phenom II X6 1055T 95W
      • Memory:
      • 16GB DR3
      • Storage:
      • 1x250GB Maxtor SATAII, 1x 400GB Hitachi SATAII
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Zotac GTX 1060 3GB
      • PSU:
      • Coolermaster 500W
      • Case:
      • Coolermaster Elite 430
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell 20" TFT
      • Internet:
      • Virgin Media Cable
    True; and as I say, we already use a dual Opty for Exchange - I definitely want AMD to come back with a competitive genuine quad-core architecture, but QuadFX isn't it. At best, it's a proving ground, at worst a poor stop-gap. I'm aware of the restrictions regarding memory bandwidth and the weaknesses of the current "almost quad-core" Xeons, but bluntly, they still provide a lot of bang per buck.

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    434
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    2 times in 2 posts
    amd's not going to linger too much on multiple core CPU's... writing software to utilize those extra CPU's are a pain in the ass. Right now, hardware is eons beyond current softwares available. THey are not being used 100% efficient all the time. Although Multi core cpu's seem to be the way of the future... we will never know, AMD has a different plan.. and its not going to be multicore in 2008 i suppose... their planning on something entirely different.

    Again, in the end its all about having what you need. Right now C2D is whipping AMD's ass.. but AMD is still there.. thats the point, and they will continue to improve. I hate fanboys, in a market such as this its better to have rivalry... where companies struggle to stay on top of each other... it benefits us consumers... look at how microsoft monopolises the market... =/ not good. Microsoft dictates their standards, because no other company challenges them... Mac, is just like a little ant...

    In the end we buy the products that have an advantage at current times.. not because your a fan of it - that makes you a dumb idiot who doesnt care about the quality of the product you get... as long as its from your oh so powerful idol company

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. PSU Calculator
    By Hullz-Modz in forum PC Hardware and Components
    Replies: 146
    Last Post: 10-04-2008, 07:07 PM
  2. AMD Japan Files Claims Against Intel in Japan
    By Steve in forum HEXUS News
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-07-2005, 03:58 AM
  3. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 28-06-2005, 11:06 PM
  4. Do you get an 'XP rating' applied when you o/c?
    By Austin in forum PC Hardware and Components
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 11-12-2003, 03:10 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •