An exclusive gaming industry community targeted
to, and designed for Professionals, Businesses
and Students in the sectors and industries
of Gaming, New Media and the Web, all closely
related with it's Business and Industry.
A Rich content driven service including articles,
contributed discussion, news, reviews, networking, downloads,
and debate.
We strive to cater for cultural influencers,
technology decision makers, early adopters and business leaders in the gaming industry.
A medium to share your or contribute your ideas,
experiences, questions and point of view or network
with other colleagues here at iVirtua Community.
I'll admit on the dual-core front, AMD trumps Intel, but that's because Intel foolishly gave each of their dual-cores a single 800 MHz frontside bus. The problem is core communication and data feed. If the Pentium D's had more data feed, then I'm certain that the Pentium D's would retain the lead in media encoding.
The new duel-core pentiums are going to have a 1033mhz FSB. Not a huge increase, but at least its something.
Well, I don't think that'll help much. BUT. I do know that Dempsey kicks fricken butt, 'cause it has TWO 1066 MHz frontside buses. That one's pretty arseome.
I'll admit on the dual-core front, AMD trumps Intel, but that's because Intel foolishly gave each of their dual-cores a single 800 MHz frontside bus. The problem is core communication and data feed. If the Pentium D's had more data feed, then I'm certain that the Pentium D's would retain the lead in media encoding.
The new duel-core pentiums are going to have a 1033mhz FSB. Not a huge increase, but at least its something.
I agree. This is why AMD's HTT & memory controller rock big time.
But right now, I give credit where it is deserved, \"AMD\" ;)
Last edited by Super XP on Sat Dec 31, 2005 12:56 am; edited 1 time in total
Honestly I prefer AMD. If you brought two processors at the same speed etc, the AMD would be cheaper. And frankly, I think its a better performance.
At the moment, yes. Intel and AMD shift around. I'd like to point out that Intel will easily trounce any AMD if you pay $150. Then there are the Core Duos, which give you the power of an Athlon 64 X2 in a laptop -- but they only consume 31 watts as opposed to 89 watts by the slowest Athlon 64 X2.
AMD all the way. The first to have a 64, and the first to bet Intel many times.
Holy cheesing hell.
Is there any fact on which to base any of these ludicrous statements? Good lord... this is all completely absurd. If you're going to make statements like that, back 'em up or shut up. That's ridiculous.
AMD wasn't the first to have a 64-bit system, Intel beat them to that fair and square via the Itanium processor. As far as I know, AMD has yet to introduce hyperthreading (or anything like it) or Micro-Ops Fusion. There's a slew of Intel technologies which help power AMD chips (SSE?).
I would post some baseless flamebait of my own, but that goes against the manner in which I like to post. Good day.
-Pikl
PS: Thanks, Intel, for inventing the microprocessor.
Indeed, the Intel 4004, developed by a team headed by Marcian E. Hoff was the first microprocessor. The first desktop computer by all accounts is generally considered the ENIAC, even though Konrad Zuse invented the Z1 in 1938, which was the first digital binary computer. This is the way I view Intel and AMD:
Intel became a very powerful company by teaming with other companies, namely Microsoft. They led the pack for years. At the time, there were several CPU manufacturers, Intel, AMD and Cyrix to name a few of the larger ones. Over time, Intel squeezed out the competition but failed to totally obliterate AMD. In the mid 90s with advent of the K6 line of CPUs, AMD started to pose a serious risk to Intel. Cyrix was bought by VIA by the way. Anyway, history moves on and AMD continues to release CPUs that rival those of Intel.
Enter today, where AMD still poses a threat to Intel, but in a much different fashion. Intel and AMD will probably always be around, because as we all know, healthy competition is good. When consumers have a choice between two good products made by two totally different companies, history shows us that generally, both companies will profit. At this point, it can be argued over which is better, but what it really comes down to is personal choice.
Performance to price ratio goes to AMD. Besides, in designing the P4, Intel made a few critical mistakes.
That's an entirely respectable opinion. Sorry if I sound like I get irritated by the typical, \"OMG AMD Totally there beter!\" It's probably because I actually do get pretty irritated by that.
I view Intel and AMD as two excellent companies. Contrary to how my posts may sound AMD has a lot of things I really admire. They both make great chips, frankly K8 was astounding. However, I'm apt to say they're even. AMD has a lead? Big whoop. Last time I checked, Intel kicked the face out of the K7 architecture. Intel will one-up AMD, then they'll be even for a bit, then AMD'll one-up Intel, then they'll be even for awhile again. Repeat.
Quote:
Performance to price ratio goes to AMD. Besides, in designing the P4, Intel made a few critical mistakes.
The only \"mistake\" I can see from the Pentium 4 is that Intel tried to push it too long. The Pentium 4 should never have seen 65nm, and Prescott should never have been released. They should have made a 90nm Northwood, 64-bit with maybe a few architectural tweaks (like a bigger cache, faster FSB, etc). The research and development funding that went towards Prescott would have been put to better use making the Conroe a sooner reality.
Otherwise, I don't particularly see anything wrong with the Pentium 4, and contrary to what people nag on and on about it, it was a highly innovative architecture.
Pickle, I highly agree with you. There isn't anything wrong with the P4. It scores higher in some benchmark tests than AMDs do, likewise, AMDs score higher in some tests. I've had Pentiums before (and I still do) but I've never had a P4, so I really have no right to compare the P4 to anything. All I know is that my brother has a 2ghz P4 Northwood and my 1.5ghz AthlonXP 1800+ smokes it with the same amount of RAM. There are other hardware factors there as well though. My vido card is much better quality than his, so that's a big factor in overall benchmarking.
I just prefer AMD because I'm a poor cop who doesn't have the money to dish out for a Prescott (Cops and Firefighters, the two noblest careers with the least amount of pay, go figure).
Anyway, I agree with you. I won't knock Intel for no reason.
Yes, those were both great opinions. But will Intel ever release P5? I've always been a Intel user, but since the Athlon64 came on the scene, things can change..
Last edited by Turkey on Sun Mar 05, 2006 1:00 pm; edited 1 time in total
Of course they'll release a new core architecture. If they hope to survive in this extremely competitive world, they'll have to. Eventually they'll need to abandon the P4 architecture and start from scratch to make things bigger, better and faster.
They just need to clock their core duos up to about 2.6 GHz (or higher), and put them on a 1066MHz bus. That would really make a comotion. And they could probably just continue using the same Prescott coolers they are currently using!