Intel has been reduced to the follower

[DAPUNISHER]

I didn't intend to suggest you were, my appologies if that's how it came off I just feel it's an oversimplification to credit AMD being competitive as the primary reason for current pricing structures. They've both greatly expanded their product lines since those days as well, so that is also a factor, particularlly since both companies still have a flagship chip approaching $1000 for Intel and nearly $800 for AMD after all this time

 

[Maximilian]

Well Duvie i like the "evil empire" They make some really bad processors (celeron) and sell these in the million to people and i think its really amusing that they capitalise on peoples stupidity and its a very good idea too. People like amd because intel screw over the average person and have higher prices with nothing to justify it, people just dont like this but since im not the average person and know whats what i dont care and i still like intel

On the other hand amd has to be given praise too as they keep prices down and tbh their athlon XP was excellent, one can be bought for less than the price of some trainers today at £88 from komplett for a 3000+ Where would the processor industry be without amd (£400 for a 2.8C and £900 for a 3.2C) so i do hope amd stay in the game and dont get wiped out like cyrix and those other companies that i dont even remember the name of :S

Intel does have the P4 2.8C which i believe stomps all athlon XP's? and gets stomped by the athlon 64. It bridges the gap between mid range and high end which is great as it can do most games dependant on other components and it dosent have a huge price, £122 here in the uk from komplett. Intel also brought hyper threading to the table they also came up with a few instruction sets of their own and their latest breakthrough the pentium m!!! supposed to be good. Its the only pentium ive seen thats been given praise on here Anyways thats my 2 cents

GO INTEL!
YAY FOR AMD!

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Pariah

Intel has been reduced to the follower

Except in the only thing that matters... making the most money.

I only AMD had a clue how to take ADVANTAGE of this situation.

Expect them to shoot themselves in the foot again . . . evidently AMD doesn't know how to "lead".

:roll:

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: Ilmater
Now, just to make it a trifecta for AMD, Intel is going to implement AMD's throttling technology that they use in the AMD 64 family to help with the heat issues in the Prescott.

Actually the dynamic throttling technology has been on the Banias core for quite some time now.

You've listed 2 things that Intel has followed AMD on (although NX is partially an MS thing). But there are many more that Intel has followed AMD and even more that AMD has followed Intel, even now. The reason you people dont know about those is because they are usually low-key EE concepts that pretty much only EE majors would ponder.

 

[Chu]

Originally posted by: Ilmater
I'll post a link to proof of this stuff - Text - but most of us know this stuff already, and the rest I'll summarize below (with my own opinions added in). If this is a repost, I will replace this post with me begging for forgiveness from the repost Nazis of the world.

Intel's new processor is not that great. I'm not saying Intel won't sell tons of them, just that it clearly has some heat issues and such. They know they've eeked all they can out of the P4 architechture, and they cancelled Tejas and Jayhawk because of it.

Now, they had to follow AMD with its iAMD64 extensions. They have to follow AMD with its NX bit after Microsoft announced it was canning Palladium (WOOHOO!!) in favor of the NX bit. Now, just to make it a trifecta for AMD, Intel is going to implement AMD's throttling technology that they use in the AMD 64 family to help with the heat issues in the Prescott.

I'm not posting this to start an AMD vs. Intel thread, I'm simply pointing out that the firm that I see as the underdog has just shown the big boy of the industry how to swing. Very impressive. Those are three technologies that AMD came up with itself that are now going to be industry standards. Impressive.

Unfortunately, I'm sure Intel will still sell far more chips and will probably shoot so far ahead with their next processor core that AMD will be lightyears behind. But that's just speculation...

Untill Dell stops being an Intel shop, Intel will always be in front. That's the reality of the sistuation, and a reason why Dell adopting opteron for their some server lines is a lot more telling them people lead you to believe.

-Chu

 

[MDE]

Originally posted by: jhurst
Celeron is not a problem for Intel. Celerons give people a lower cost option. Why would old people need to pay top dollar for a P4 when all they need to do is e-mail and surf the internet...

The problem is that a Celeron 2.6 costs the same as an Athlon XP 2600+ that stomps it into the ground.

 

[Alkaline5]

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: Ilmater
Now, just to make it a trifecta for AMD, Intel is going to implement AMD's throttling technology that they use in the AMD 64 family to help with the heat issues in the Prescott.

Actually the dynamic throttling technology has been on the Banias core for quite some time now.

You've listed 2 things that Intel has followed AMD on (although NX is partially an MS thing). But there are many more that Intel has followed AMD and even more that AMD has followed Intel, even now. The reason you people dont know about those is because they are usually low-key EE concepts that pretty much only EE majors would ponder.

Banias is a mobile CPU, and clock throttling has been in the mobile CPUs of BOTH Intel and AMD for years. It might not be revolutionary, but I'd still call it an innovation for AMD with regards to the desktop segment.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: MDE

Originally posted by: jhurst
Celeron is not a problem for Intel. Celerons give people a lower cost option. Why would old people need to pay top dollar for a P4 when all they need to do is e-mail and surf the internet...

The problem is that a Celeron 2.6 costs the same as an Athlon XP 2600+ that stomps it into the ground.

Why is that a problem?

. . . and Athlon does NOT stomp the Celeron for "e-mail and surf[ing]the internet".

:roll:

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: Ilmater
Intel's new processor is not that great. I'm not saying Intel won't sell tons of them, just that it clearly has some heat issues and such. They know they've eeked all they can out of the P4 architechture, and they cancelled Tejas and Jayhawk because of it.

That's debateable that the NetBurst architecture has run out steam. Prescott was a poor implementation whose bloated transistor budget caused it to suffer significant leakage issues. Based on the thermal performance of Dothan verus Banias, a shrink of Northwood with additional L2 cache would probably of gone much smoother. Make some modifications for 64-bit support, FSB bumps and an ondie memory controller and the 90nm Northwood would have been competitive with AMD's 90nm products.

They have to follow AMD with its NX bit after Microsoft announced it was canning Palladium (WOOHOO!!) in favor of the NX bit.

Which was found in the Itanium processor years earlier, and even earlier on virtually every other server level CPU. And no, Microsoft has not given up on Palladium for NX, since they have very little to do with each other.

Now, just to make it a trifecta for AMD, Intel is going to implement AMD's throttling technology that they use in the AMD 64 family to help with the heat issues in the Prescott.

Its more like the continuation of a trend of borrowing and improving on each other's idea for thermal management of ever hotter processors over the years.

Intel had Halt on the Pentium processor which would greatly reduce power consumption on idle cycles. This was improved upon by SpeedStep which allowed the system to switch to a lower CPU speed/voltage without restarting. AMD improved upon it with PowerNow which allowed for multiple settings and automatic demand based switching for its mobile K6 and Athlon products. Intel matched it with Enhanced SpeedStep for the Pentium-M and also implemented several levels of thermal management for the original P4, including the catastrophic thermal shutdown first found the in the P3, automaticly throttling on overheat and software controllable throttling of duty cycles to reduce performance and heat. The first two features have been copied by AMD. AMD also enabled PowerNow/Cool n Quiet on their desktop A64s which helps reduce the idle power dissipation signficantly.

However, based on a review which compared the power dissipation of different Intel and AMD systems, the A64 needed CnQ badly since its idle power dissipation was only slightly lower than its full load power dissipation (not unlike the Athlon desktop processors before the S2K Bus Disconnect option was enabled). Northwood based systems had a similar reduction in power using just Halt as the A64 did with CnQ. Prescott systems were significantly worse than either at full load or idle so it would greatly benefit from a CnQ/Enhanced SpeedStep system, at least for low CPU usage situations. But the plans have been in place for a long time for Prescott to get such a system as it was in Intel's Software Developer's Manual for awhile now.

http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/processorsmemory/0,39024015,39145079-2,00.htm

 

[MDE]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: MDE

Originally posted by: jhurst
Celeron is not a problem for Intel. Celerons give people a lower cost option. Why would old people need to pay top dollar for a P4 when all they need to do is e-mail and surf the internet...

The problem is that a Celeron 2.6 costs the same as an Athlon XP 2600+ that stomps it into the ground.

Why is that a problem?

. . . and Athlon does NOT stomp the Celeron for "e-mail and surf[ing]the internet".

:roll:

Is my sarcasm detector broken or are you on drugs?

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: MDE

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: MDE

Originally posted by: jhurst
Celeron is not a problem for Intel. Celerons give people a lower cost option. Why would old people need to pay top dollar for a P4 when all they need to do is e-mail and surf the internet...

The problem is that a Celeron 2.6 costs the same as an Athlon XP 2600+ that stomps it into the ground.

Why is that a problem?

. . . and Athlon does NOT stomp the Celeron for "e-mail and surf[ing]the internet".

:roll:

Is my sarcasm detector broken or are you on drugs?

Both :laugh:

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: Alkaline5

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: Ilmater
Now, just to make it a trifecta for AMD, Intel is going to implement AMD's throttling technology that they use in the AMD 64 family to help with the heat issues in the Prescott.

Actually the dynamic throttling technology has been on the Banias core for quite some time now.

You've listed 2 things that Intel has followed AMD on (although NX is partially an MS thing). But there are many more that Intel has followed AMD and even more that AMD has followed Intel, even now. The reason you people dont know about those is because they are usually low-key EE concepts that pretty much only EE majors would ponder.

Banias is a mobile CPU, and clock throttling has been in the mobile CPUs of BOTH Intel and AMD for years. It might not be revolutionary, but I'd still call it an innovation for AMD with regards to the desktop segment.

Actually no.

Clock throttling in general has been available in SpeedStep since the early mobile Pentium 3's (another Intel innovation). But dynamic throttling was first introduced on the Banias. Whether this applies to mobile or desktop technology is irrelevant because we're talking about the actual technology, and not the application of it.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: MDE

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: MDE

Originally posted by: jhurst
Celeron is not a problem for Intel. Celerons give people a lower cost option. Why would old people need to pay top dollar for a P4 when all they need to do is e-mail and surf the internet...

The problem is that a Celeron 2.6 costs the same as an Athlon XP 2600+ that stomps it into the ground.

Why is that a problem?

. . . and Athlon does NOT stomp the Celeron for "e-mail and surf[ing]the internet".

:roll:

Is my sarcasm detector broken or are you on drugs?

Both :laugh:

I wanna see benchs that show the athlon superior to the celeron for e-mail apps.

(all3)

:roll:

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Accord99

They have to follow AMD with its NX bit after Microsoft announced it was canning Palladium (WOOHOO!!) in favor of the NX bit.

Which was found in the Itanium processor years earlier, and even earlier on virtually every other server level CPU. And no, Microsoft has not given up on Palladium for NX, since they have very little to do with each other.

sparc4 (4c, 4d, 4m, 4u I believe), alpha, AMD64, Itanium.

MIPS and PPC don't have it.

Yeah, Palladium is still going to happen. It's a damn shame because it has very little technical merit IMO.

 

[MDE]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: MDE

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: MDE

Originally posted by: jhurst
Celeron is not a problem for Intel. Celerons give people a lower cost option. Why would old people need to pay top dollar for a P4 when all they need to do is e-mail and surf the internet...

The problem is that a Celeron 2.6 costs the same as an Athlon XP 2600+ that stomps it into the ground.

Why is that a problem?

. . . and Athlon does NOT stomp the Celeron for "e-mail and surf[ing]the internet".

:roll:

Is my sarcasm detector broken or are you on drugs?

Both :laugh:

I wanna see benchs that show the athlon superior to the celeron for e-mail apps.

(all3)

:roll:

There's no difference between a 1GHz Duron and an FX-53 or P4 3.4EE for email. What if Grandma wants to do something a little more demanding down the road though? It never hurts to get more potential performance for the same price.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Yeah, Palladium is still going to happen. It's a damn shame because it has very little technical merit IMO.

Again, be careful when making opinions of products long before they are finalized.

Mark my words... There is a lot of doomsaying about Palladium. But when it finally comes out, you'll see that it isn't truly horrible, as the rampant speculation reports.

 

[justly]

The opinions and points of view in this thread are quite interesting. The thing is that there is such a variety of things a computer can do it really is pointless to try and claim any one company or its product is more innovative or better than the other. Of course each one has its strong points that can make the other look somewhat lacking, but overall I have to say it is impossible to claim one is always better than the other.

I also believe a few comments might be in error.

Clock throttling in general has been available in SpeedStep since the early mobile Pentium 3's (another Intel innovation). But dynamic throttling was first introduced on the Banias. Whether this applies to mobile or desktop technology is irrelevant because we're talking about the actual technology, and not the application of it.

I was not aware that the Banias core came out before the K6-2+ with PowerNow.

And

. . . and Athlon does NOT stomp the Celeron for "e-mail and surf[ing]the internet".

stomp may not be a very accurate term, but in a benchmark that is supposed to test ?surfing the internet, using Office, and running a handful of other common utilities and programs.? it does score higher, just look at this Business Winstone 2004 test.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Yeah, Palladium is still going to happen. It's a damn shame because it has very little technical merit IMO.

Again, be careful when making opinions of products long before they are finalized.

Mark my words... There is a lot of doomsaying about Palladium. But when it finally comes out, you'll see that it isn't truly horrible, as the rampant speculation reports.

The whole idea behind it is to protect the liars in CA. The mpaa and riaa want this to protect the mythical IP they think they have. The whole idea is ridiculous.

Of course, there are people that will want to utilize it, and it will be great for them. But that won't change my opinion about it (notice, I did specify that earlier statement as my opinion instead of just classifying it as crap like the ia32e chips). I'll still think it is worthless and not worth my time. I'd rather be free to use my system the way I want.

If you can provide more information, please do. If not, don't tease.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: justly
The opinions and points of view in this thread are quite interesting. The thing is that there is such a variety of things a computer can do it really is pointless to try and claim any one company or its product is more innovative or better than the other. Of course each one has its strong points that can make the other look somewhat lacking, but overall I have to say it is impossible to claim one is always better than the other.

When one product is missing a vital piece of the architecture (NX bit), it is always worse than something that has that vital piece.

I also believe a few comments might be in error.

Clock throttling in general has been available in SpeedStep since the early mobile Pentium 3's (another Intel innovation). But dynamic throttling was first introduced on the Banias. Whether this applies to mobile or desktop technology is irrelevant because we're talking about the actual technology, and not the application of it.

I was not aware that the Banias core came out before the K6-2+ with PowerNow.

I thought powernow was more along the lines of speedstep, where as this "dynamic throttling" changed the cpu speed as you use the system...

And

. . . and Athlon does NOT stomp the Celeron for "e-mail and surf[ing]the internet".

stomp may not be a very accurate term, but in a benchmark that is supposed to test ?surfing the internet, using Office, and running a handful of other common utilities and programs.? it does score higher, just look at this Business Winstone 2004 test.

The chart is missing labels, so I'm not sure how worthwhile it really is.

 

[justly]

When one product is missing a vital piece of the architecture (NX bit), it is always worse than something that has that vital piece.

Am I wrong, or is ?NX bit? not a NEW feature that isn?t NEEDED to run current software, there by not being a "vital piece of the architecture".

I thought powernow was more along the lines of speedstep, where as this "dynamic throttling" changed the cpu speed as you use the system...

here is the link to the ?Mobile AMD-K6-2+ Processor and AMD PowerNow!? Technology Frequently Asked Questions? page on AMD website, here you will find

Q: What is AMD PowerNow!? technology ?
A: AMD PowerNow!? technology can enable significantly extended battery life of notebook PCs by up to 30% depending on system implementation. AMD PowerNow! technology is a combination of software and hardware support that allows the processor to run at different frequencies and voltages. There are three basic modes of operation, including AMD's unique "automatic" mode.
· High Performance Mode ? the CPU runs at maximum frequency and voltage.
· Battery Saver Mode ? the CPU runs at lowest frequency and voltage to maximize system battery life.
· Automatic Mode ? the system monitors application usage and continuously varies operating frequency and voltage to deliver performance on demand while optimizing battery life.

The chart is missing labels, so I'm not sure how worthwhile it really is.

sorry, but I don?t understand what you mean by its missing labels.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: justly

When one product is missing a vital piece of the architecture (NX bit), it is always worse than something that has that vital piece.

Am I wrong, or is ?NX bit? not a NEW feature that isn?t NEEDED to run current software, there by not being a "vital piece of the architecture".

Notice how VITAL security is right now?

I thought powernow was more along the lines of speedstep, where as this "dynamic throttling" changed the cpu speed as you use the system...

here is the link to the ?Mobile AMD-K6-2+ Processor and AMD PowerNow!? Technology Frequently Asked Questions? page on AMD website, here you will find

Q: What is AMD PowerNow!? technology ?
A: AMD PowerNow!? technology can enable significantly extended battery life of notebook PCs by up to 30% depending on system implementation. AMD PowerNow! technology is a combination of software and hardware support that allows the processor to run at different frequencies and voltages. There are three basic modes of operation, including AMD's unique "automatic" mode.
· High Performance Mode ? the CPU runs at maximum frequency and voltage.
· Battery Saver Mode ? the CPU runs at lowest frequency and voltage to maximize system battery life.
· Automatic Mode ? the system monitors application usage and continuously varies operating frequency and voltage to deliver performance on demand while optimizing battery life.

Thanks, works for me.

The chart is missing labels, so I'm not sure how worthwhile it really is.

sorry, but I don?t understand what you mean by its missing labels.

All 20.1 means is that it is more than 20.0 and less than 20.2. But without knowing what those numbers represent (seconds, minutes, hours, megabytes, megabits, kilobytes, kilobits?), it doesn't give us much information. IMO of course.

 

[nitromullet]

All 20.1 means is that it is more than 20.0 and less than 20.2. But without knowing what those numbers represent (seconds, minutes, hours, megabytes, megabits, kilobytes, kilobits?), it doesn't give us much information. IMO of course

I think that is measuring rods to the hog's head. Who cares!?! Everybody on this forum knows that an Athlon XP 2600+ is a better bang for the buck processor than the Celeron 2.6. It doesn't matter if all you do is email, the proc is still faster and it costs the same. Even the Duron 1.6 beats the Celeron 2.6 in most benches.

from the final words of the same article:

Final Words
It is very obvious from these tests which line of budget processors is worth the money. When we can find a 1.6GHz Duron for just over half the price of a 2.6GHz Celeron and get better performance consistently in almost every test we ran, the choice is clear.

Whether you want to fault Intel or the people buying them is up to you.

Edit: I run a P4 and am quite happy with it. I have no ill will towards Intel or AMD, but I would never spend my money on a Celeron even if all I did was surf/email. Then again, I probably woudn't ever get a Duron either.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
When one product is missing a vital piece of the architecture (NX bit), it is always worse than something that has that vital piece.

Am I wrong to presume that you read the rest of that other thread, where we discussed whether or not Intel will be using that feature? If you didn't see it, take note that both gsellis and I provided links stating that Prescott does have the ability to prevent buffer overflows.


But Palladium is pretty much the same thing. Some paranoid people post unfounded/unconfirmed speculation, and many readers just run with it. Whether or not the information is accurate, is irrelevant.

No, I don't know anything more about Palladium than anyone else here. But my point is, wait for the facts before drawing definite conclusions.

 

[justly]

Notice how VITAL security is right now?

I?m not arguing that it is not needed, or that it is not a good feature, just that I wouldn?t call it VITAL.

All 20.1 means is that it is more than 20.0 and less than 20.2. But without knowing what those numbers represent (seconds, minutes, hours, megabytes, megabits, kilobytes, kilobits?), it doesn't give us much information. IMO of course.

Well it does state ?What's also important to note is that a score of a 10.0 here is about the performance level of a 1GHz Pentium III?. Now I know most people will say a 1GHz Pentium III is all anyone needs for this, but the reason why I linked to this benchmark is because someone used the :roll: as if it where impossible for a Athlon to beat a Celeron at this.

BTW I helped someone set up their internet access and e-mail on a prebuilt Sony computer with a P4 Celeron (I think it was a 2.4 or 2.6 GHz) and if all P4 Celerons are that slow I would rather use my old K6-3-450 for surfing the internet and doing e-mail.

 

[drag]

Celerons suck plain and simple.

Intel's ia32e isn't worth it because it lacks the security features that AMD has.

32bit Intel offerings are not worth looking at anymore now we have decent 64bit offerings. The reason for me isn't speed, but it's memory. Memory is rising in price lately, but that's not a big deal. It'll get cheaper eventually.. In a few years 1gig of ram will be mimimal amount needed and 64bit just allows for much more upgradability.


Palladium is a waste of effort. DRM for the most part sucks and should be avioded, anything to do with this sort of thing is just designed to milk consumers for as much money as possible.

For example take Apple's itunes, a DRM-driven setup.

You buy a song in a low-mid bitrate lossy format for a dollar apeice. Apple "allows" you the luxury of a certian amount of "backups" and that sort of thing. Stupid.

For example I can go and sign up for columbia house and BMG at the same time and end up getting around 29-32 or so cd's for around 170-220 dollars (that includes shipping) if I work their 12 for one-style sign-up deals and even more if I play it smart. Even more then that If I buy the required cds under get 3 for 1 deals (You can pick up used CD's cheap, look for deals and such and end up saving a lot thru otherways, too).

If you say that you get a average of 10 songs per CD, that gets you 320 or so songs at less then a dollar a peice.

Even if you don't like half of them you still get songs that are only slightly more expensive then Itunes.

Then I just rip then into Flac format on my harddrive and store my CDs in a nice cool place for postarity or incase my HD takes a dump.

Plus the songs I get are invariably higher sound quality then I'd get thru Itunes, plus I'd probably have a much higher amount of selection to choose from.

Then I get them for whatever purpose I want. I can give individual songs to friends, make mix cdroms, play them on whatever computer I want, play them on whatever mp3-style player I want. I don't have to worry about breaking any encryption scemes, I don't have to fight a DRM crap. Nothing, they are mine to do with as I please.

Why would I want to pay more to get lesser amounts, lesser quality, and more trouble?