Originally posted by: SickBeast
Originally posted by: coldpower27
The only points in the last 7 years when AMD had the lead was during the Willamette P4 days, and during the Athlon 64x2 days, any time other then that, Intel was competitive enough.
They held the lead for close to 1/2 of the P3's lifespan. At 700mhz+, the P3 did not scale well. I remember the embarassment of intel releasing the 1ghz P3, only to have to recall it because it was unstable. From there they had to develop a new fab process and eventually got the tualatins up to 1.4ghz or something, but by that point AMD had the Athlon XP which was running at a considerably faster frequency.
Did the K6 never hold any kind of advantage over the Pentium/P2?
Also, I'm almost positive that the single-core A64 crushed anything intel made when they were launched. I remember the hype around the A64 launch. The P4 was a disaster for intel, and AMD pretty much pwned them while they were selling those chips (the P4C was the exception, but even there it was a tie and AMD was still faster in games.
The Coppermine core was competitive with the Thunderbird right up to 1GHZ, and like I said again, the margins of victory the AMD processors took if any were in the range of 5-10% so not enough to cause any fuss when weighed in with AMD's at the time weaker chipset support and much hotter running processors. So overall it's even.
Your remembering incorrectly, the Pentium 1.13GHZ was the processor Intel recalled Intel made it to 1 GHZ just fine.
I was just telling you seem to compare two architectures of different philosophies at the same clockrates, which is an utterly worthless scenario. I wasn't discussing the market position of the Tualatin vs the AMD Athlon XP at all, at that time Intel was pushing the Pentium 4 line which did well as they were using the GHZ train and was priced accordingly, AMD back then had to price according to the GHZ frequencies they had rather then actual performance.
I was also talking the last 7 years, and I assume you knew I was talking about K7 onward so I ain't discussing the K6 which is for the moment off topic.
Your forgetting many things and remembering wrong, the Pentium 4C line beat AMD's and weren't matched by any AMD K7 based SKU for the upper models SKU's similar to the situation Intel holds now, but Intel margin of leading currently is higher. The highest performing Athlon XP was the 3200+ and that only matched the 2.8C, the 3.0C and 3.2C were an untouchable stock performance level for AMD for that time. The Pentium 4C's beat AMD in everything including games.
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=1834
The Single Core Athlon 64's were better then the Pentium 4's at gaming, but we know that, that isn't the be all and end all to everything the Pentium 4's has the advantage of HyperThreading and so were better for multitasking on the desktop as well as media encoding. So overall that was a tie as it was dependent on what you did, in some scenarios the Athlon 64's was the processor of choice and in some it was the Pentium 4.
To be the actual leader you have to lead across all the workloads used on the desktops not just limited to gaming scenarios. So the Single Core Athlon 64 vs the Pentium 4 was overall a tie, it was contingent on determining what you were going to do with it.
The Pentium 4 sold just fine for the majority of it's life, it is anything but a disaster. Despite all the problems with Prescott it sold well, and NetBurst is going away in a decent package with the Presler and Cedar Mill derivatives. It wasn't till Smithfield where things were starting to get a little tough for Intel.
Oh yeah, we come back to only having the Willamette P4 vs Athlon Thunderbird/XP and Athlon 64x2 vs Smithfield and Presler where AMD held any lead worth mentioning, everything else had enough arguments for both sides, or AMD lost.
Facebook
Twitter