I *MUST* make fun out of this.

[Aenslead]

Want to hear a joke?

Paxville.

Wanna hear a better joke? Just listen to Mike Dell say its the best thing since sliced bread.

Want to know what's even funnier? Its performance, price, availability and compatibility is sooooo low and scarce... that its not funny any more.

Bad Intel. Bad, bad, bad.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Man he's full of crap!

"Intel takes a very definitive lead in performance and power management at 65 nanometers. ... If we thought AMD was going to be supercompetitive in the spring and fall of next year, we'd be introducing AMD products right now,"

Lead in power management my foot! AMD slaughters them in power management; even comparing AMD's 90nm to Intel's 65nm! Not to mention server performance. What a joker.

 

[Aenslead]

sad, huh?

 

[Hacp]

maybe he meant managing power, not power consumption?

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: Hacp
maybe he meant managing power, not power consumption?

LOL.

Just because Intel is paying this guy out the ass and giving Dell massive discounts doesn't mean he should blatantly lie and spread FUD like that. But I guess Intel's Xeon has never been weaker at this stage in time, so what better way to back the Xeon than a big fat lie?

 

[Aenslead]

Originally posted by: Hacp
maybe he meant managing power, not power consumption?

???????????????

And how would that be?

 

[jjmIII]

I'd tell a lie like that to get on Forbes top 5 richest list :evil:.

 

[thescreensavers]

Originally posted by: jjmIII
I'd tell a lie like that to get on Forbes top 5 richest list :evil:.

LMAO :laugh:

 

[chinkgai]

Originally posted by: jjmIII
I'd tell a lie like that to get on Forbes top 5 richest list :evil:.

god u greedy fvck!

















































i'd be happy with top 1000 even

 

[fatty4ksu]

I'd say the dudes at dell have a good idea what's going on...but that's just me.

 

[sandorski]

If Intel can't answer AMD soon, Dell is going to begin losing business. The performance difference is just getting too much media exposure and those who need processors of this class will know who's who no matter what MD spews.

 

[chinkgai]

Originally posted by: sandorski
If Intel can't answer AMD soon, Dell is going to begin losing business. The performance difference is just getting too much media exposure and those who need processors of this class will know who's who no matter what MD spews.

you would be shocked at what businesses order and how little they care about actual performance vs brand recognition etc.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: chinkgai

Originally posted by: sandorski
If Intel can't answer AMD soon, Dell is going to begin losing business. The performance difference is just getting too much media exposure and those who need processors of this class will know who's who no matter what MD spews.

you would be shocked at what businesses order and how little they care about actual performance vs brand recognition etc.

Probably would be, but those using more intensive apps will likely eventually get through whoever keeps buying the systems. Most PCs in use by business don't really require much power(peroformance power ) and Dell would still be a valid choice, but Servers/Workstations I suspect Dell will begin losing business with.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Can we say AMD troll infestment??

It doesn`t matter what Intel does good or bad truth or no true....even if Intel were to come out with the latest and greatest least power hungry Processor...you peeps would be so blind to the truth you would still be arguing that AMD is soo much better....too funny!!

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Can we say AMD troll infestment??

It doesn`t matter what Intel does good or bad truth or no true....even if Intel were to come out with the latest and greatest least power hungry Processor...you peeps would be so blind to the truth you would still be arguing that AMD is soo much better....too funny!!

I see...does that mean that if Intel produced CPUs hotter than the sun that required nuclear reactors to power, and had IPC just above that of a Commodore 64, you would explain how much better it was?

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Can we say AMD troll infestment??

It doesn`t matter what Intel does good or bad truth or no true....even if Intel were to come out with the latest and greatest least power hungry Processor...you peeps would be so blind to the truth you would still be arguing that AMD is soo much better....too funny!!

Yoda, what the F are you talking about?

This site was an Intel fanboy site 2 years ago when Northwood was king, I had one, Duvie had one, everybody was running them. AMD was shunned except in the "extreme value" category once the P4 C came out.

Now, any rational human being can see that the P4 Prescott is a crappy chip. I was rooting for it to be "the next northwood," but thermal leakage made the chip a furnace.

The new Xeon is nothing more than a rushed Pentium D in Xeon's clothing - it has an FSB that is supersaturated by the two CPU's and an architecture that is designed with single core in mind. The entire A64 AMD line is more dual-core friendly since of the onboard memory controller and Hypertransport bus (although there is definitely room for improvement in the dual core arena).

Perhaps we are talking so ill about Prescott because it really is that bad. Check many senior members' here posting on the Pentium-D - it's an oven and it throttles on stock cooling! That is not the sign of a good CPU, and the Xeon is based on this same Pentium D architecture (albeit it is die shrunk to 65nm).

 

[Hyperlite]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Can we say AMD troll infestment??

It doesn`t matter what Intel does good or bad truth or no true....even if Intel were to come out with the latest and greatest least power hungry Processor...you peeps would be so blind to the truth you would still be arguing that AMD is soo much better....too funny!!

Yoda, what the F are you talking about?

This site was an Intel fanboy site 2 years ago when Northwood was king, I had one, Duvie had one, everybody was running them. AMD was shunned except in the "extreme value" category once the P4 C came out.

Now, any rational human being can see that the P4 Prescott is a crappy chip. I was rooting for it to be "the next northwood," but thermal leakage made the chip a furnace.

The new Xeon is nothing more than a rushed Pentium D in Xeon's clothing - it has an FSB that is supersaturated by the two CPU's and an architecture that is designed with single core in mind. The entire A64 AMD line is more dual-core friendly since of the onboard memory controller and Hypertransport bus (although there is definitely room for improvement in the dual core arena).

Perhaps we are talking so ill about Prescott because it really is that bad. Check many senior members' here posting on the Pentium-D - it's an oven and it throttles on stock cooling! That is not the sign of a good CPU, and the Xeon is based on this same Pentium D architecture (albeit it is die shrunk to 65nm).

I concur. we will support the best product, which at the moment is AMD.

 

[dmens]

The real joke is the GamePC review. It is obvious that paxville runs damn hot but those benchmarks are bogus. Either they fixed the numbers, or they are deliberately using dumbed down hardware.

I saw real benchmarks for the thing from DP to 16-MP while paxville was being debugged in-house. On many apps 4-way paxville was comparable to equivalent low end opteron setups. Mind you these are real benchmarks not using the fancy intel compilers, because we engineers actually care about hard data unlike the FUD-tossers next door, LOL.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: dmens
The real joke is the GamePC review. It is obvious that paxville runs damn hot but those benchmarks are bogus. Either they fixed the numbers, or they are deliberately using dumbed down hardware.

I saw real benchmarks for the thing from DP to 16-MP while paxville was being debugged in-house. On many apps 4-way paxville was comparable to equivalent low end opteron setups. Mind you these are real benchmarks not using the fancy intel compilers, because we engineers actually care about hard data unlike the FUD-tossers next door, LOL.

The part that doesn't bode well for Intel is that for the first product launch I can remember, they didn't hand out review samples...
I agree that GamePC has a less than sterling rep, but not allowing the trusted review sites (AT, X-Bit, etc...) a sample tells me that GamePC might have hit close to the mark.

 

[dmens]

There's a difference between stating the obvious (paxville is mediocre) and faking benchmarks to bias a review. Those numbers are just too skewed compared to the ones I've seen. It might be sweet music to many AMD fans... maybe the guy who wrote the review is a big fanboi, haha.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: dmens
There's a difference between stating the obvious (paxville is mediocre) and faking benchmarks to bias a review. Those numbers are just too skewed compared to the ones I've seen. It might be sweet music to many AMD fans... maybe the guy who wrote the review is a big fanboi, haha.

I surmise he is trying to help move all the DC Opterons he ordered They did the same thing with all the Pentium-Ms combos they were sitting on.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: dmens
There's a difference between stating the obvious (paxville is mediocre) and faking benchmarks to bias a review. Those numbers are just too skewed compared to the ones I've seen. It might be sweet music to many AMD fans... maybe the guy who wrote the review is a big fanboi, haha.

Actually, quite the opposite (which is what's so surprising). GamePC tends to write more Intel fanbois pieces (I don't think I've seen one with an AMD slant from them). They're not quite as bad as THG, but then who is?
The sad part for Intel is that GPC have the ONLY review out...I'm not dissing whatever testing your guys have done, but without published testbeds and results we just can't judge them...

BTW, I came across this as well while perusing the web...
link

Some benchmarks for INTEL's Paxville Dual core
DELL, 2CPU, 4 Core,2.8GHZ Paxville, specint_rate score
58.9

www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2005q3/cpu2000-20050902-04544.html

HP, 2CPU, 4 Core, specint_rate score 75.0

see
www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2005q3/cpu2000-20050902-04600.html

Conclusion: HP's old 2P x86 server is 27.33% faster
than newest 2P D-Core Paxville Xeon DELL server in raw
integer performance

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

Originally posted by: fatty4ksu
I'd say the dudes at dell have a good idea what's going on...but that's just me.

Another troll post by fatty. Everyone remember fatty stated that his 1.8PIV Willamette encoded faster than his AMD64.

There really isn't anything I can say about the Dell fud that is spewing forth currently. If Intel had the best chip then I would own that, if AMD had the best chip (a mix of speed, features, wattage output, temperatures underload etc.) then I would own that.

I do own a X2 at present so I may be a little biased.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: fatty4ksu
I'd say the dudes at dell have a good idea what's going on...but that's just me.

But that isn't really the issue...the question is how much of what they say can the business consumer believe?
The problem Dell now faces is that all they have is a very second rate server product to offer for at least the next 9-12 months or more. Since Dell is an end to end supplier (meaning that they sell a company everything from desktops to servers), I suspect this will have a big impact on sales growth over the next year.
The question for them now is, which will cost them more...the loss of Intel's subsidies or the loss of marketshare to HP, IBM, and Sun?
I certainly don't know the answer (and I suspect none of us do), but I must say that there has never been a stronger incentive for them to openly take AMD on as second supplier (contrary to popular belief, Dell does sell Opterons, but only under NDA and only at specific clients requests).

 

[coldpower27]

From the article:

"However, analysts and companies such as Hewlett-Packard, which sells servers using processors from both companies, believe that AMD has had a performance advantage over Intel for a few years. This will change when Intel introduces processors based on its 65-nanometer processing technology, Dell said."

"Intel takes a very definitive lead in performance and power management at 65 nanometers. ... If we thought AMD was going to be supercompetitive in the spring and fall of next year, we'd be introducing AMD products right now," Dell said. Enck did not follow up and ask why Dell hasn't introduced AMD products over the past year, given that Intel did not have that performance lead at the 90 nm process generation. "

Hopefully Dell is refering to Sossaman, Woodcrest & Tusla and not the Dempsey. You do understand that statement does encompass Xeon products on 65nm that includes non NetBurst architecture products? Andwith the way thee worded it, what is "supercompetitive" to him?