Athlon 64 - Intel is jealous?

[beyoku]

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: MonkeyDriveExpress

Originally posted by: SlipperySam
I would just like to interject something here.
All the preliminary testing seems to point to the conclusion that the Athlon64 will run my games faster than the fastest P4.
Nothing else matters.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Care to comment Wingznut?

Ask and ye shall receive. 😉

SlipperySam has the right attitude. To the desktop user, the strength of the A64 is not that it can run x64 code... It's strength is that it looks like the A64 will likely be a strong 32bit performer.

Originally posted by: sandorski
These comments are really High Praise though, it used to be that AMD didn't even exist, if you listened to comments(or lack thereof) from Intel. 😉 The official line used to go something like this: "We do not comment on others' product lines"

I believe that is still Intel's policy. We don't really know the source or context of the heresy in metroplex's initial post, but I doubt it was any kind of official statement.

We are speculating. Remeber we dont yet know how the A64 will run a 64bit game on Windoze 64 - We have yet to see it. So why everybody is saying it will not make a difference we really dont know. Does anybody in here have a beta or win64?? And a beta of som 64bit appz.

 

[mrgoblin]

Itanium is going to eat Intel alive from the inside. PEople see 64 bits in a cost effective package and are going to want next gen xeons to have it (I dont think its on their roadmap however) and will in effect buy opterons since they are cheaper and have 64 bits. The idea that you can have something that was "exclusive" to servers and now is available to the small guy is something intriguing to consumers. They see Intel and AMD products up and for cheaper they can have "3200+" which is less than the intel chip with 64 bit computing. Now a novice could easily say "intel has a better reputation" , but these buyers would not buy amd anyway as they have likely not heard of them. Some people at Intel no doubt are liking this situation because the prescotts will be prices ALOT lower than A64's according to a recent pricing change. We will be able to pick up 2.8 prescotts for 170 bucks. Now AMD is charging ALOT more for a product that might not be that much faster than the prescott. Amd fans are the ones who will keep amd alive but if Intel is the price performance king, alot of amd fans will switch to the other side seeing that amd is thinking that everyone will drool over this processor. DOnt expect prescott to be a pushover. Heat issues aside, its gonna be a beast at 0.09 process. As it stands now, im gonna buy a 754 pin A64, because ive been waiting to upgrade for a long time and Its pointless to wait 4 months just to spend a little less even though im sure it will be much faster. I know though that if later down the line I want to upgrade, everyone who buys now will be in the same boat as me and likely have to find a pci-X board just like everyone who waits for a 939 pin 64. Id rather buy now then wait and hope amd produces a cheaper chip which I dont think will happen. Imho, cheapest amd 64 in 4 months will be 300 bucks.

 

[INemtsev]

Intel is loosing they show it in the iterview.......no need for more RAM......MY ASS!!!They had too many problems with Prescott.....When XP 64bit edition comes out they'll have no choice....

 

[Jeff7181]

To make one last comment...

I don't think it's accurate to use the term jealous. Maybe, unprepared, is a better word. Until just recently, nobody was real sure of how the Athlon-64 would perform... we had an idea because of the Opteron, but there's some differences between the two processors that can make a difference in performance. Now recently we've seen some benchmarks from some engineering samples of the A-64 and it looks very good. Pricey, but good. As all of you should know, you'll always pay a premium for brand new technology.