• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

INTEL FUD PRESENTATION ATTACHED--INTEL HAS REACHED A NEW LEVEL OF DESPERATION

L

LiveFree

Junior Member
After viewing this presentation, it appears Intel thinks it's customers are not knowledgeable about computers. This 32 page NON-NDA presentation is jam-packed with the most absurd and baseless claims imaginable, focusing on convincing OEM's and system-builders that Intel has the superior solution. Please spread this around. This garbage needs to be exposed for what it is.



INTEL PRESENTATION---POWER-POINT REQUIRED--1MB


The Inquirer explains section by section, why this presentation is FUD:

Link
 
Originally posted by: J0hnny
I'll agree with the socket confusion though. That has always annoyed me.
Click to expand...

Hahaha.
Better to have certain sucks and then have 90% of all decent chipsets for that socket support whatever processors than have one socket (775) and then have it so that while you may have a 775 board, you need a new motherboard because the chipsets don't support whatever new processor Intel puts out, which does seem to happen a fair bit. Sockets are IMO easier to sort through than chipsets, because there are less of them.
 
care to explain to me why the intel presentation about having larger cache is incorrect? i mean, one would think.. if you have more cache that it does make more information readily available... since its in cache and doesn't need to be loaded...
 
Originally posted by: Meractik
care to explain to me why the intel presentation about having larger cache is incorrect? i mean, one would think.. if you have more cache that it does make more information readily available... since its in cache and doesn't need to be loaded...
Click to expand...



Because the information in the presentation is devised to make the encompassing statement that Intel offers better performance and is better all around. Which is simply not true. Thousands of reviews have shown that AMD offers all-around better performance than Intel.
 
Wow, that was pretty unprofessional. But it seems like that's the thing to do. I remember ATI did it a little while befoer teh x1800 release
 
That was actually kind of humerous to read through, because they made some pretty unsupported claims. The last bit about AMD's product names not correctly denoting their GHz value was rather hilarious since Intel doesn't either.
 
Originally posted by: Meractik
care to explain to me why the intel presentation about having larger cache is incorrect? i mean, one would think.. if you have more cache that it does make more information readily available... since its in cache and doesn't need to be loaded...
Click to expand...

AMD processors use exclusive caches; Intel uses inclusive. An inclusive cache is one where the contents of L1 are stored in L2, and L2 is stored in L3 (if applicable). On a Pentium D, that's 16+12=28K of wasted space per core.

Plus, I think that Intel processors require each core to have identical L2 contents, since the processors are connected by only the GTL+ bus. So that 2x2MB is bunk, since the contents are the same.

AFAIK Opterons/dual core Athon64s are able to access each other's core direcly without having to copy the contents, since the processors are connected directly together via the HyperTransport bus (or crossbar in case of dual-core chip).

As with everything else Intel v. AMD, it's size v. efficiency.
 
Buahahaha, this presentation looks like a slide show from a cheap used car dealership commerical. It's so ridiculous and laughable at best, sure intel has more theoretical bandwidth but because it doesn't have an integrated memory controller+ has high latency memory, that 10.66GB/s of bandwidth is significantly lower, how much was it agian? HMM? IIRC it was lower than PC4000 DDR memory on an 875P chipset.. :roll: I know, cause I compared benchmarks between my system and the intel "reference" system in sisoft... Sigh, intel IS desperate..
 
intel must be hurting bad if it has to resort to stuff like this, or at least just trying to backhand AMD again

I don't hate intel, in fact I think they have the mobile world under control right now (tho AMD is working on that I believe) but for desktops AMD is the way to go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top