STARTLING: P4 as fast as A64 in Doom 3 real-world test

[Hyperlite]

emphasis on "..."

 

[mooncancook]

The thing is...Intel Extreme graphics still occupies largest % of market share (something like 70%) in the graphics market. Therefore, on the whole, gaming is a small priority for PCs.

that's because it is onboard. It is built into the mobo so whether you use it or not it is still counted as market share. If Intel Extreme graphic is an add-on retail board then it'll sell very poorly.

Gaming is not a small market. Just look at how much cash does Blizzard crop up with their WarCraft series and Diablo series. Look at how many copies Sims and Sims2 sold. Gamers are the ppl who are willing to pay. Regular home user spend money on $500 systems, it's not a whole lot of money to make. Gamers spend $1500 on a system and are still always looking for upgrafes. Why do you think ATI and nVidia spend so much resouce to develop the fastest graphic chips?

unfortunately consumers will continue to buy whats "safe," "common" and "proven."

that's very true. That's why companies spend billions on advertising. Most consumers are probably not very knowledgeble about computers, that's why they most likely pick Intel, a name they are familiar with.

Dont knock it till you try it

I would have tried it if it's cheaper, or if i do video editing/encoding a lot. So i can only read reviews...

Yes they do indeed have EMT64.

Thanks for the info... i haven't been reading the latest cpu news. But how much it cost?

 

[Sentential]

My 640 cost me $300 at the release. You can get em for $270 now. Price wise they are no worse than a 3500+ and peform (for the most part) identically.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Sentential

Originally posted by: mooncancook

Originally posted by: Sentential
Money is the jack of all trades. Until AMD gets that squared away they will just be another piss-ant company. For their sake I certinaly hope they do but I feel they are focusing on the wrong end of technology. Like it or not the gaming sector is a very small percentage of PC users. Most people use a PC strictly for browsing etc. AMD needs to get a form of hyperthreading for their CPUs

I think hyperthreading is over-hyped.

Dont knock it till you try it

Originally posted by: Hyperlite
I have to say, thats not entirly true moon....the 6xx series does supposedly have 64bit extensions (has anyone tested that yet, btw?)

Yes they do indeed have EMT64. In addition to that many people have tested for 64bit support on the hybrid boards. No issues were noted

NO issues??? I saw many review sites not being able to do test cause it wouldn't run.....May not be all, but there was some issues. It definitelky made it quite clear the emt64 is no mere clone of AMDs implementation of 64bit...

 

[Sentential]

Nope. No issues whatsoever. If they were it would be because of BETA drivers and not the hardware itself. Whomever reviews said hardware probably did so before any official driver support was available

Also EMT64 is the proper name for what AMD used. Intel started the project with their Itaniums but scrapped. AMD later finished it and called it x86-64. Intel used the finished protocal and gave it its original name...EMT64.

But no. No issues at all in 64bit mode. EMT64 is identical in every way except for specific CPU optimizations, much like AMD has done to patch SSE support to their CPUs.

 

[Duvie]

Ofcourse it was driver issues. I didn't think the hardware was flawed. However when they are supposed to be so identical yet some reviews could get the AMD to run but not the INtel in a particular 64bit apps makes you wonder....At least the non fanboy ones...

Those issues were there in many reviews of the 6xx seriers when it arrived...do a search....All I was saying!!!

 

[Sentential]

Originally posted by: Duvie
Ofcourse it was driver issues. I didn't think the hardware was flawed. However when they are supposed to be so identical yet some reviews could get the AMD to run but not the INtel in a particular 64bit apps makes you wonder....At least the non fanboy ones...

Those issues were there in many reviews of the 6xx seriers when it arrived...do a search....All I was saying!!!

Oh? very strange. I know partially why AMD has done so well with 64 bit support is largly in part due to nVidia who has been on the leading edge of 64 bit drivers. Intel has been a bit slow on that end and recentally (as late as 2 weeks ago) released a couple sets of 64 bit chipset drivers.

However with the new drivers that are readily available 64 bit support works just fine on any socket-T. This includes i865PE and i875T chipsets

 

[Duvie]

Probably so....However there is definitely a bit more of a difference then many of us think when it comes to each owns implementation of x86x64....ONe thing to remember is Intel came to the game late on the 64bit...parttly cause they said there was no need for it, but nonetheless Microsoft laid down the law and stated they did not want to have to write another set of code for INtel's version or to have an xp64 version for INtels alone. It was one version, one set of code, and the work was already far along prior to Intel submitting its version.

What seems funny is Intel must not have followed Micorsofts words, cause they shouldn't have needed anything different from AMD....If Intel had to write the drivers then it is clear they had a hardware implementation issue.....AMD driver support was there and working in many of the same apps the Intel version was not...

 

[Sentential]

Originally posted by: DuvieWhat seems funny is Intel must not have followed Micorsofts words, cause they shouldn't have needed anything different from AMD....If Intel had to write the drivers then it is clear they had a hardware implementation issue.....AMD driver support was there and working in many of the same apps the Intel version was not...

You completely misunderstand me. You cannot...repeat.. CANNOT use the same software instruction codes on differnt CPU platforms. What you said about Intel's EMT64 I can say the same about AMD's MMX, SSE, SSE2 and SSE3 support. All four are patched versions used natively on Intel chips. In terms of peformance, EMT64, SSE, SSE2,SSE3 all behave the same on both processors. Are they written identically? NO. However they both work just fine and produce the same results.

What you basically said was: "oh well since ATi and Nvidia use different rendering methods one is crap and the other is good". No, they both do the same thing. Its only different because the designs on the chips are different. It still produces an image and in EMT64's case it still works in 64bit mode.

The only thing that Intel modified x86-64 were the specific AMD optimizations and replaced them with Prescott / Dothan ones. THATS all.

 

[imported_SLIM]

Originally posted by: Sentential

Originally posted by: DuvieWhat seems funny is Intel must not have followed Micorsofts words, cause they shouldn't have needed anything different from AMD....If Intel had to write the drivers then it is clear they had a hardware implementation issue.....AMD driver support was there and working in many of the same apps the Intel version was not...

You completely misunderstand me. You cannot...repeat.. CANNOT use the same software instruction codes on differnt CPU platforms. What you said about Intel's EMT64 I can say the same about AMD's MMX, SSE, SSE2 and SSE3 support. All four are patched versions used natively on Intel chips. In terms of peformance, EMT64, SSE, SSE2,SSE3 all behave the same on both processors. Are they written identically? NO. However they both work just fine and produce the same results.

What you basically said was: "oh well since ATi and Nvidia use different rendering methods one is crap and the other is good". No, they both do the same thing. Its only different because the designs on the chips are different. It still produces an image and in EMT64's case it still works in 64bit mode.

The only thing that Intel modified x86-64 were the specific AMD optimizations and replaced them with Prescott / Dothan ones. THATS all.

What a load of FUD. Read a little and learn:
http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2005q1/64-bits/index.x?pg=3

There are large differences in the implementation of the AMD64 instruction set as can plainly be seen in the graphs. More often than not, the A64 reaps larger benefits than the 660 P4 (clocked at 50% higher frequency) when a 64bit OS is used and especially when running a 64bit app. Of course, if you don't like this review, there are several previous but similar versions of the same story at various websites. You'll probably have to wait for intel's next chip to see 64-bit properly supported (maybe Yonah?).

You just keep telling yourself that a 640 p4 performs the same and runs as cool as a 3500+... If you say it enough times you might actually believe it. I'll stick with a venice core A64 for my next processor.

 

[Sentential]

Im sorry but how are those 64bit results any different than the 32bit ones? I am talking on technology moron. You cant impliment the same protocol on netburst that you would use on the hammer design. That doesnt make the design any worse than the one AMD is using. It is slower only because the physical CPU is

If I were talking in speed I would have said so. Learn to read next time