Whatever's wrong with Intel? Reading through their future roadmap, it seems that they have a new codename for a new chipset for a new CPU with a new codename and a new architecture. Confusing? The Pentium4 is split between 478-pin and a 423-pin chips, thus making upgrades virtually impossible. What's even worse is that for each chip (according to the no. of pins they have like the 478 and 423 pins matter) comes an entirely new chipset, which makes buying a new PC (with the new chip and chipset, only to be replaced by newer ones 'bout a year down the road, then the whole cycle repeats itself...) the only way to upgrade. Who knows, after having your hands on a 500-pin Intel CPU, they decided to release a 510-pin with a new chipset (chipsetA), followed by a 520-pin with another new chipset (chipsetA1) etc. Not only that, Intel seems to have a wide range of selection for their codenames, which include Tualatin, Northwood, Brookdale, Prestonia, Gallatin etc. I bet Intel had hired some English professors for a few ten thousand bucks a month just to come up with such unimaginative names...
What's wrong with Intel?
- Thread starter xhakker21
- Start date
Its a marketing technique that they use currently and in the past to allow AMD to surpass them in sales.
Obviously its worked well for them.
-M.T.O
(Moonbeam, you should be so proud of my overwhelming sarcasm in the above post.
)
Obviously its worked well for them.
-M.T.O
(Moonbeam, you should be so proud of my overwhelming sarcasm in the above post.
)My first 64-bit CPU will have 'AMD' on it
Unlike the Titanium CPU, all CPU's in AMD's Hammer series are backwards compatible with 32-bits software, which is a good thing IMHO.
Unlike the Titanium CPU, all CPU's in AMD's Hammer series are backwards compatible with 32-bits software, which is a good thing IMHO.
It's right in keeping with their history. Since Intel makes the chipsets and the motherboards which run their processors (at least for the major OEMs), they make MUCH more money when they introduce a new interface (Socket-of-the-day) and an accompanying new chipset. Upgraders can't upgrade without buying a new motherboard, and Intel makes a killing.
Remember the change from Socket 7 to Slot 1? AMD continued quite ably with Socket 7 and Super Socket 7 for awhile while Intel went to selling it's new form factor with questionable need. That's why I've always wanted AMD to kick Intel's ass.
Remember the change from Socket 7 to Slot 1? AMD continued quite ably with Socket 7 and Super Socket 7 for awhile while Intel went to selling it's new form factor with questionable need. That's why I've always wanted AMD to kick Intel's ass.
AndrewR wrote:
"Remember the change from Socket 7 to Slot 1? AMD continued quite ably with Socket 7 and Super Socket 7 for awhile while Intel went to selling it's new form factor with questionable need. That's why I've always wanted AMD to kick Intel's ass."
Yep, and Socket 7, while proclaimed "Dead", is still widely used. It was a venerable platform. Remember when Intel introduced the SECC design and said "the days of socket CPUs are over"? Of course it was a gimmick. They made a killing selling all those "newfangled" boards which was a joke. Then they switch back to the socket, and what a surprise. New boards, etc. As someone pointed out, with Intel also involved in the chipset manufacturing, they stand to gain significantly whenever they can "introduce" a "new" architecture -- and get consumers to keep ponying up for it.
"Remember the change from Socket 7 to Slot 1? AMD continued quite ably with Socket 7 and Super Socket 7 for awhile while Intel went to selling it's new form factor with questionable need. That's why I've always wanted AMD to kick Intel's ass."
Yep, and Socket 7, while proclaimed "Dead", is still widely used. It was a venerable platform. Remember when Intel introduced the SECC design and said "the days of socket CPUs are over"? Of course it was a gimmick. They made a killing selling all those "newfangled" boards which was a joke. Then they switch back to the socket, and what a surprise. New boards, etc. As someone pointed out, with Intel also involved in the chipset manufacturing, they stand to gain significantly whenever they can "introduce" a "new" architecture -- and get consumers to keep ponying up for it.
think logicaly here.
AMD's Athalon 1.3 gig out performs Intels P4 1.7 and it's $100 cheaper.
Do we need any logical here the only answer is the obviouse one. I've never used intel and I never will.
AMD's Athalon 1.3 gig out performs Intels P4 1.7 and it's $100 cheaper.
Do we need any logical here the only answer is the obviouse one. I've never used intel and I never will.
What's wrong with having new names for new architectures?
Let's have a look at BOTH sides of the coin: AMD's Morgan, Sledgehammer, Palomino, Mustang, Barton...
In what way are the Intel code names any less imaginative? Each code name refers to a different project. Intel seems to have many more code names because they have to name chipsets as well. AMD doesn't seem to want to produce chipsets, so they don't need any names.
AMD must also change chipsets whenever they come up with something new. My A7V board won't work with a 1.33GHz Athlon, because that board, and every other board based on the KT133 chipset doesn't support a 133MHz FSB. I have to go out and get an A7V133 instead.
Did AMD not also change from Slot A to Socket A as well? What happened to all those initial Athlon buyers who were stuck with a Slot board? Intel at least allows users to use slotkets. Where's an AMD compatible slotket???
The additional pins for the Northwood Pentium 4 processor are there to facilitate SMP operation. The current Willamette processor does not support SMP operation.
<< Intel went to selling it's new form factor with questionable need >>
Intel needed the new form factor in order to fit the L2 cache. Take this into account and compare it with the Pentium Pro and you will see that it is fully justified.
Before you go and sledge Intel, have a balanced view of the situation by looking at BOTH sides.
Let's have a look at BOTH sides of the coin: AMD's Morgan, Sledgehammer, Palomino, Mustang, Barton...
In what way are the Intel code names any less imaginative? Each code name refers to a different project. Intel seems to have many more code names because they have to name chipsets as well. AMD doesn't seem to want to produce chipsets, so they don't need any names.
AMD must also change chipsets whenever they come up with something new. My A7V board won't work with a 1.33GHz Athlon, because that board, and every other board based on the KT133 chipset doesn't support a 133MHz FSB. I have to go out and get an A7V133 instead.
Did AMD not also change from Slot A to Socket A as well? What happened to all those initial Athlon buyers who were stuck with a Slot board? Intel at least allows users to use slotkets. Where's an AMD compatible slotket???
The additional pins for the Northwood Pentium 4 processor are there to facilitate SMP operation. The current Willamette processor does not support SMP operation.
<< Intel went to selling it's new form factor with questionable need >>
Intel needed the new form factor in order to fit the L2 cache. Take this into account and compare it with the Pentium Pro and you will see that it is fully justified.
Before you go and sledge Intel, have a balanced view of the situation by looking at BOTH sides.
Intel's marriage to rambus has also hurt them. It drove up the prices of RDRAM equiped systems. And besides, informed people like those here at AT know better to support such an evil Duopoly.
The part you're missing, Andy, is that AMD was able to work within the confines of the Socket 7 (and SS7) architecture while creating some excellent chips WITHOUT the need to alter the form factor. Could Intel have done the same? Probably. Plus, though AMD has required new chipsets and form factors lately, they have little financial interest in their creation since they do not manufacture either. Also, AMD-compatible boards have historically been cheaper than their Intel counterparts, taking some of the sting out of the upgrade (not to mention that the chips are less expensive!).
The appearance is that Intel is far too eager to change form factors since they also manufacture the other parts. Instead of working within the constraints of what they have in front of them, they immediately introduce new form factors without regard to the consumer. Add their high prices into that equation, and resentment is understandable, if not expected. Their plans for more form factors only increases that perception.
The appearance is that Intel is far too eager to change form factors since they also manufacture the other parts. Instead of working within the constraints of what they have in front of them, they immediately introduce new form factors without regard to the consumer. Add their high prices into that equation, and resentment is understandable, if not expected. Their plans for more form factors only increases that perception.
Also, the Slot A came around during the time of Slot 1 Pentium II's and III's. It was the same slot Intel used basically flipped around and with electronic differences so chipset makers could save money using parts they already had and would be encouraged to develop for AMD's new chip. When on-die cache came to the scene, slot processors died and the cheaper-to-manufacture socket processors were resurrected.
Bottom line I have had a Thudnerbird and a PIII and The PIII is way more stable and actually works. But I don't blame AMD, I blame VIA for their piece of sheit chipsets. However, I do think AMD should be more responsible with actually having a stable chipset before they release a CPU, therefor, I will buy Intel for now...
AMD's Athalon 1.3 gig out performs Intels P4 1.7 and it's $100 cheaper.
It beats the P4 in some things and not in others. If you are buying PCs for a company $100 doesnt amount to much in the scheme of things
Do we need any logical here the only answer is the obviouse one. I've never used intel and I never will.
Obviously you then limit your options, I would rather have the best system than just be brand loyal
Not that long ago the celerons and P3's overclocked well and kicked ass. How soon we forget things like this. AMD currently would seem to wear the performance and cost crowns, but this could well change in the future. AMD is doing an excellent job and produce great products, but their position is not unassailable
Don't buy brands, buy systems
It beats the P4 in some things and not in others. If you are buying PCs for a company $100 doesnt amount to much in the scheme of things
Do we need any logical here the only answer is the obviouse one. I've never used intel and I never will.
Obviously you then limit your options, I would rather have the best system than just be brand loyal
Not that long ago the celerons and P3's overclocked well and kicked ass. How soon we forget things like this. AMD currently would seem to wear the performance and cost crowns, but this could well change in the future. AMD is doing an excellent job and produce great products, but their position is not unassailable
Don't buy brands, buy systems
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,405
- 8,583
- 126
<< Remember the change from Socket 7 to Slot 1? AMD continued quite ably with Socket 7 and Super Socket 7 for awhile while Intel went to selling it's new form factor with questionable need. >>
i wouldn't say ably... the k6 wasn't a very good chip except for word processing. its multitasking was horrible, so was its FPU performance. socket 7 was holding AMD back and thats why they ditched it when they were able to. intel knew that performance would be hampered, so they switched to an in package cache and the higher MHz GTL bus with the pentium pro. then they realized they would not be able to sell a processor like that to the masses, it was simply too expensive. so they went with the next solution: put the processor on a daughtercard and have the backside cache sitting there with it. much cheaper solution and much higher performing than socket 7 ever could be. it took AMD a long time to come up with an in-package cache solution, the k6-3, and even longer until it could be done cheaply, the + series.
<< Do we need any logical here the only answer is the obviouse one. I've never used intel and I never will. >>
obviously you're a newbie or you wouldn't say stuff like that. i'd say mid-1999 at the earliest.
<< Instead of working within the constraints of what they have in front of them, they immediately introduce new form factors without regard to the consumer. >>
who exactly do you think intel's customers are? i'll give you a hint: its not you. intel's customers are dell, compaq, HP, gateway, IBM. they frankly don't care if intel changes the board on them. they just buy new boards. and it doesn't hurt them, especially with the short inventories we've seen lately. and you know who their customers are? for the most part corporations which don't upgrade parts on computers because it would take their IT department far too long to do so, and regular people who are can't even install software properly. US? we're tweakers, and per capita we might spend more on PC equipment that pretty much any other group, but you know how many of us there are? not enough for intel to really care about changing the socket, especially when they can save a lot of $$$ and add performance doing it.
AndyHui wrote:
"Did AMD not also change from Slot A to Socket A as well? What happened to all those initial Athlon buyers who were stuck with a Slot board? Intel at least allows users to use slotkets. Where's an AMD compatible slotket???"
It's called follow the leader, isn't it? I mean, Intel was going that way, so AMD "had" to. At least they kept Socket 7 alive and breathing for those who weren't ready. As for the Slotket, do you REALLY think Intel "approved" of that? Of course not. That was 3rd party manufacturers who saw a goldmine. If Intel had it their way, Slotket's would not exist. Don't be so naive.
"Did AMD not also change from Slot A to Socket A as well? What happened to all those initial Athlon buyers who were stuck with a Slot board? Intel at least allows users to use slotkets. Where's an AMD compatible slotket???"
It's called follow the leader, isn't it? I mean, Intel was going that way, so AMD "had" to. At least they kept Socket 7 alive and breathing for those who weren't ready. As for the Slotket, do you REALLY think Intel "approved" of that? Of course not. That was 3rd party manufacturers who saw a goldmine. If Intel had it their way, Slotket's would not exist. Don't be so naive.
<< Bottom line I have had a Thudnerbird and a PIII and The PIII is way more stable and actually works. But I don't blame AMD, I blame VIA for their piece of sheit chipsets. However, I do think AMD should be more responsible with actually having a stable chipset before they release a CPU, therefor, I will buy Intel for now... >>
I absolutely agree. The only thing holding back AMD atm is thier relliance on VIA... VIA is sh!te plain and simple. Sure tweakers can eventually get thier VIA systems perfectly stable with enough patches... but you must remember MOST people arent tweakers. And the amount of VIA chipset boards Ive seen coming back with problems BY FAR... I mean BY FREAKIN FAR surpasses any other chipset maker (meaning Intel in particular since in size I suppose they are the only comparable chipset manu).
The last few systems I've built for family and friends I would have preferred to go AMD but the alternatives to VIA just werent there. However, that looks to be changing very soon. Yay nForce
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter