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.
The only reason that the Intels didn't die is because they have a better temperature cut off.
Yeah, I know, those bastards. They should just let their CPU's fry in the event of a fan failure...
Quote:
AMD figures that those who have their cpus know enough about computers not to use them without cooling.
Well, I guess Intel figures that those who have their CPU's paid good money for them, and deserve to have some quality put into it. It's interesting to note, the Pentium M, a CPU which CAN be used with a passive heatsink arrangement, can ALSO withstand up to 100? C, despite the fact that it runs much MUCH cooler than any Athlon 64 (and consumes less power).
Quote:
I think if you went with equally priced, the AMD would win them all.
That only applies to single-cores, and even that rule won't stand for much longer. I'd also like to take the time to remind everyone that this isn't \"Intel losing.\" AMD was very much in the same situation when Intel one-upped them with the 800 MHz frontside bus Pentium 4 'C' processors some six months prior to the launch of the Athlon 64.
In any case, I really don't think AMD beats Intel on \"price to performance.\" The only place AMD's single-cores unilaterally win is in gaming, but the Intel single-cores get their revenge in media encoding, and, to a lesser degree, 3D animation applications.
I am compelled to add that it is personal opinion, but I will never buy a processor based on gaming performance. Between a 3.0 GHz Pentium 4 and my X800 XL, my computer (nearing now two years in age) is still competitive and able to play the latest games at appreciable frame rates. A lot of computers that my friends own powered by Athlon 64 3000's run games better, but that doesn't stop me from taking my fair share of first places in servers, and I do render and encode blazes faster than them.
Quote:
And I get the impression that Intel will never again beat AMD in anything.
I get the impression Intel has beaten and continues to beat AMD in arenas much aside from simply microprocessors... and Intel still isn't topped on the mobile front. AMD, on the other hand, chose a perfect year to announce their self-established, \"We're two years ahead of Intel,\" bogus slang line.
If AMD is \"two years\" ahead of Intel, why is Intel going to debut their mobile dual-core first? Why is Intel, two years behind, going to debut the first mass distributed dual-core processor with shared cache? Why is Intel going 65nm first? Why is a 2.0 GHz Pentium M able to eat a 2.0 GHz Athlon 64 for breakfast while consuming less power and giving out less heat to boot?
Quote:
This is why AMD has Hyper Transport 2 already being used & tested.
To give credit to AMD, HyperTransport is something I very much admire. It would be good to see Intel ditch the frontside bus, as HyperTransport is very clearly the best \"performance per watt\" solution and it has arrived in perfect timing for feeding dual-core chips.
Between AMD's pricing, HyperTransport, and the integrated memory controller, I will give them the credit they deserve. But I think Intel has some pretty kickass technologies on their side of the fence (Micro-ops fusion, shared cache, hyperthreading, etc.)
Quote:
And we will see now AMD's Tri-Core CPU's perform against Intel's Quad-Core's when the time comes.
I still have yet to see any evidence of any AMD tri-core CPU's. Beyond that, I think you fail to understand that NetBurst is never going to see more than a dual-core design. Intel's future quad-core CPU's are flat going to destroy any equivalently clocked triple-core CPU based on AMD's K8 architecture.
Good Point, though, the only thing I heard that Intel is coming out with is called something like CSI Technology which is \"to my understanding\" 2 x FSB's running.
So, I will look for the AMD's Tri-Core CPU's but, they quietly announced them way back just before the release of the FX-51. So, yes, that \"Tri-Core\" stuck to me all that time.
The truth is that AMD licensed their 64-bit technology for Intel to use.
I seriously doubt that's the case. Intel's 64-bit technology was being researched for a long time prior to the release of AMD64. While it's true both technologies are very similar, I still haven't seen any press releases stating that EM64T was bought off of AMD.
Good Point, though, the only thing I heard that Intel is coming out with is called something like CSI Technology which is \"to my understanding\" 2 x FSB's running.
I forgot about that.... as I said, though, I'm very much willing to bet that
But, interesting as it is, in Intel's recent server roadmap mish mash, Intel announced that it would be replacing the planned Whitefield processor with Tigerton, a server chip that would ditch the frontside bus in favor of, quote; \"a new, dedicated high-speed interconnect.\"
Digg Topic
Tag topic on On del.icio.us
Technorati Search
Post to Slashdot
