AMD outsells Intel in US retail for the first time

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: IonYou

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: IonYou
You DO know Intel chips are faster than AMD right? This whole AMD is better crap was a ruse by hardware review sites to give Intel some competition so we could all get better prices. AMD Athlons are really slower than even mediocre Celerons. You do also know that Athlons are clocked slow as hell right? It's like the old "there's no replacement for displacement" saying with car engines. There's no replacement for raw clockspeed. And Celerons are overclockable because they have less L2 cache, so if you compare a Celeron overclocked by 1 or 2 ghz it will easily beat any Athlon in it's price range.

id take the flat 6 out of a porsche over a V8 from a vet every day of the week

haha! that's funny! Next you'll tell me you'll take an Athlon64 over a Celeron, even though everyone knows Celerons have a better crash test rating.

1) i have never owned an intel CPU, EVER

2) you are a moron

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: IonYou
You DO know Intel chips are faster than AMD right? This whole AMD is better crap was a ruse by hardware review sites to give Intel some competition so we could all get better prices. AMD Athlons are really slower than even mediocre Celerons. You do also know that Athlons are clocked slow as hell right? It's like the old "there's no replacement for displacement" saying with car engines. There's no replacement for raw clockspeed. And Celerons are overclockable because they have less L2 cache, so if you compare a Celeron overclocked by 1 or 2 ghz it will easily beat any Athlon in it's price range.

ahahahhaahahh... wait, i need to stop laughing to respond first!
ahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahah

have you even bothered to see the benchmarks on anandtech? the only thing P4's consistently win is video/audio encoding, and even then the A64 has been catching up. For everything else, there's the athlon.

the A64 series proves clock speed isn't everything, just like HP in a car isn't everything (you need torque too, damnit!).

as for the OC'ed celery, the prescott P4's (current core, right?) were great OCers cause of a long pipeline, yet they STILL were beat out by athlons clocked at nearly 1/2 the ghz.


please correct any of the above statement if i'm wrong, as i have only gleaned a little info from AT's reviews of CPU architecture and comparisons

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: IonYou

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: IonYou
You DO know Intel chips are faster than AMD right? This whole AMD is better crap was a ruse by hardware review sites to give Intel some competition so we could all get better prices. AMD Athlons are really slower than even mediocre Celerons. You do also know that Athlons are clocked slow as hell right? It's like the old "there's no replacement for displacement" saying with car engines. There's no replacement for raw clockspeed. And Celerons are overclockable because they have less L2 cache, so if you compare a Celeron overclocked by 1 or 2 ghz it will easily beat any Athlon in it's price range.

id take the flat 6 out of a porsche over a V8 from a vet every day of the week

haha! that's funny! Next you'll tell me you'll take an Athlon64 over a Celeron, even though everyone knows Celerons have a better crash test rating.

1) i have never owned an intel CPU, EVER

2) you are a moron

/me replaces the batteries in anubis' sarchasm detector

 

[JinLien]

Originally posted by: statik213

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Is Cyrix still making CPU's?

VIA (Taiwan chipset maker) bought it out, they are selling it as sthe C3 integrated on to the motherboard. They clock around 1GHz and are really really small boards, abt 1/2~2/3 size of mATX boards.... the board and CPU uses only abt 20W.... nice for a mythtv box.

National Semiconductor purchased Cyrix and they both drag each other down. Then, National Semiconductor sold Cyrix to Via, but retained the MediaGX design that they renamed as Geode (low power chip that commonly found in many imbedded hardware). AMD ended up aquired the Geode in 2003 and is now producing it under the name Geode.

I?m not familiar with Via Cyrix, but I believe that VIA uses little to no Cyrix design on their Centaur chip that inherited the Cyrix name.

The newer VIA (IDT) chip consumes 20W offering somewhere up to 2 GHZ that have to compete with AMD (Cyrix) Geode that consumes 0.9~1.1W that run up to 1 GHZ (AMD claim that it is affectively producing equivalent to 1.6 GHZ of their competitiors).

Several years ago I worked with embedded equipments that run from 225~333 MHZ Geode that consumes up to 1.2W (no moving parts, no fan, and uses disk-on-chip memory instead of hdd) and the 333 MHZ perform just about as quickly as the Celeron 450 MHZ at transferring data/encryption/data compression.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: IonYou
You DO know Intel chips are faster than AMD right? This whole AMD is better crap was a ruse by hardware review sites to give Intel some competition so we could all get better prices. AMD Athlons are really slower than even mediocre Celerons. You do also know that Athlons are clocked slow as hell right? It's like the old "there's no replacement for displacement" saying with car engines. There's no replacement for raw clockspeed. And Celerons are overclockable because they have less L2 cache, so if you compare a Celeron overclocked by 1 or 2 ghz it will easily beat any Athlon in it's price range.

Wow, here's someone who's done their research, lol. :laugh::laugh:

Btw, welcome to the internet and please feel free to look around and read a little.

 

[Skyhanger]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: IonYou

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: IonYou
You DO know Intel chips are faster than AMD right? This whole AMD is better crap was a ruse by hardware review sites to give Intel some competition so we could all get better prices. AMD Athlons are really slower than even mediocre Celerons. You do also know that Athlons are clocked slow as hell right? It's like the old "there's no replacement for displacement" saying with car engines. There's no replacement for raw clockspeed. And Celerons are overclockable because they have less L2 cache, so if you compare a Celeron overclocked by 1 or 2 ghz it will easily beat any Athlon in it's price range.

id take the flat 6 out of a porsche over a V8 from a vet every day of the week

haha! that's funny! Next you'll tell me you'll take an Athlon64 over a Celeron, even though everyone knows Celerons have a better crash test rating.

1) i have never owned an intel CPU, EVER

2) you are a moron

--> Sits back, gets a bag of marshmellows, and gets ready for the ensuing flamewar <--

IonYou, you just shorted out my sarcasm meter, I'm not sure if you're serious or this is a well planned-out joke.

 

[jadinolf]

Never had an AMD CPU.

Maybe some day.

 

[Eli]

Congrats to them.

 

[Lonyo]

AMD

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Wow, I never would have guessed, they've done well, and of the last 4 computers I've built, they've all been AMD based, my notebooks are Intel tho. Haven't paid attention to sales figures for a long time.

Is Cyrix still making CPU's?

lol, Cyrix was bought out by VIA like, half a decade ago?

 

[randumb]

a good step, but it only includes in-store (excludes dell) desktop (intel does better in mobile with the P-M) sales

 

[Kelvrick]

Originally posted by: Skyhanger

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: IonYou

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: IonYou
You DO know Intel chips are faster than AMD right? This whole AMD is better crap was a ruse by hardware review sites to give Intel some competition so we could all get better prices. AMD Athlons are really slower than even mediocre Celerons. You do also know that Athlons are clocked slow as hell right? It's like the old "there's no replacement for displacement" saying with car engines. There's no replacement for raw clockspeed. And Celerons are overclockable because they have less L2 cache, so if you compare a Celeron overclocked by 1 or 2 ghz it will easily beat any Athlon in it's price range.

id take the flat 6 out of a porsche over a V8 from a vet every day of the week

haha! that's funny! Next you'll tell me you'll take an Athlon64 over a Celeron, even though everyone knows Celerons have a better crash test rating.

1) i have never owned an intel CPU, EVER

2) you are a moron

--> Sits back, gets a bag of marshmellows, and gets ready for the ensuing flamewar <--

IonYou, you just shorted out my sarcasm meter, I'm not sure if you're serious or this is a well planned-out joke.

crash test rating should have made it obvious that its a joke

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Wow, I never would have guessed, they've done well, and of the last 4 computers I've built, they've all been AMD based, my notebooks are Intel tho. Haven't paid attention to sales figures for a long time.

Is Cyrix still making CPU's?

lol, Cyrix was bought out by VIA like, half a decade ago?

There's Transmeta and I think VIA both making super slow/low power chips.

 

[Perknose]

There's a huge, unheralded generic market in chips, though they tend to be more greasy.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Is Cyrix still making CPU's?

Sort of. They got bought up by VIA (where for you think the VIA C3 chips came from? )

 

[JinLien]

Originally posted by: WhoBeDaPlaya

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Is Cyrix still making CPU's?

Sort of. They got bought up by VIA (where for you think the VIA C3 chips came from? )

Didn't you read my post a bove?

VIA current offering came from IDT Centaur not Cyrix. AMD is currently the owner of one of Cyrix design (MediaGX) and is selling it under the Geode name.

 

[IonYou]

Originally posted by: Perknose
There's a huge, unheralded generic market in chips, though they tend to be more greasy.

Man if your chips are greasy you been using the wrong heatsink compound!

Pringles and some Arctic Silver 5 dip. What a combo!

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: IonYou
You DO know Intel chips are faster than AMD right? This whole AMD is better crap was a ruse by hardware review sites to give Intel some competition so we could all get better prices. AMD Athlons are really slower than even mediocre Celerons. You do also know that Athlons are clocked slow as hell right? It's like the old "there's no replacement for displacement" saying with car engines. There's no replacement for raw clockspeed. And Celerons are overclockable because they have less L2 cache, so if you compare a Celeron overclocked by 1 or 2 ghz it will easily beat any Athlon in it's price range.

ahahahhaahahh... wait, i need to stop laughing to respond first!
ahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahah

have you even bothered to see the benchmarks on anandtech? the only thing P4's consistently win is video/audio encoding, and even then the A64 has been catching up. For everything else, there's the athlon.

the A64 series proves clock speed isn't everything, just like HP in a car isn't everything (you need torque too, damnit!).

as for the OC'ed celery, the prescott P4's (current core, right?) were great OCers cause of a long pipeline, yet they STILL were beat out by athlons clocked at nearly 1/2 the ghz.


please correct any of the above statement if i'm wrong, as i have only gleaned a little info from AT's reviews of CPU architecture and comparisons

HP/torque isn't the right metaphor. Horsepower is the equivalent to processing power. Intels make their horsepower by revving high (clockspeed). AMD makes their horsepower with torque (processing per clock.. or whatever).

 

[ponyo]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

Could AMD become the #1 Chip maker?

Not a chance anytime soon.

i don't know, things turn around quickly in this industry, the amd64 and amdx2's are way better than anything intel has. if for no other reason than the heat generated by the p4's are just crazy.

basically it would be dell, at some point it will make economic sense for them to switch from intel to amd. if they make the switch, it will pretty much put amd in the lead.

AMD has always done well in retail. This isn't a surprise.

Intel owns corporate. That's where the money is.

As for AMD becoming #1 chip maker, you're talking crazy talk. It's impossible. Why?
Simple. AMD has no where the capacity. They need to build lot more fabs.