For the neandrathals, wait, that's too nice, as neadrathals had larger brains than humans, well for the archaic homonids with the itchy troll trigger fingers, my point... is whatever reason the folks at Apple or most analyst will "pitch" about Apple going Intel is in short B.S.
Hence the blah, blah, blah... I thought that was self evident, but I'm wrong. I guess all the rumors I've been hearing about./ are true. Exit stage left.
No, no, why leave it to imagination let's just have actual people die, it worked for the Romans, and the Colliseum was the largest stadium/dome ever built for more than 2000 years, come on, they were on to something.
I don't want to turn this into a political diatribe, but this has little do with president, blacks or white, this is purely economics and class issue (as racism is simply a manifestation there of) etc... etc... there are 3 truths about human beings and political systems whether they be dictatorship, democracy, monarchy, etc... etc...
#1) Those who have power and wealth will rule over the masses.
(When was the last time you saw a poor guy as president, or even a governer, or congressman???)
#2) Those, who have power and weatlh will put at the forefront the concerns of other individuals who have power and wealth.
(The old boy network works all the way from the janitors hanging out together excluding the new guy, to the president being close friends of certain former CEO of Haliburton,... who is he going to be concerned some poor smuck in east bumble f*ck Carolina, or his old childhood friends welfares? Aside from election time, he could careless about the smuck)
#3) Only a fool would believe in the benevolance of man, and 99% of people are fools, "as they say individuals are smart, but people are stupid"... people will believe whatever they are told to believe and want to believe. Ask yourself in the last 5 years and beyond how many "halve truths" have you been told. You'd rather believe that some guy 3000 miles away is plotting your demise. See rule #1 about wealth and power, wealthy and powerful, look out for one another period. And this is true across borders as well as with in.
I was being fescicious about the Bushes owning stock in Exxon, the point is that they are wealthy family, who's made money in Oil, Energy, and Defense.
Look they said as a spectator sport the Pro Video Gaming league just isn't exciting enough... I was just throwing out a suggestion, hockey had it's fights, boxing has it's ear biting, baseball has it's bats, football has T.O. and... well what does the pro video gaming league, have,... you got any better ideas I'm all ears.
Look they said as a spectator sport the Pro Video Gaming league just isn't exciting enough... I was just throwing out a suggestion, hockey had it's fights, boxing has it's ear biting, baseball has it's bats, and... well what does the pro video gaming league, have,... you got any better ideas I'm all ears.
Start using real people electronically controlled via the video game, that way when you kill someone, guess what, someone really dies, even better you know that pit of lava you just jumped into, well, guess what someone really just jumped into a pit of lava. I'd liken it to running man, but these people have no free will, you are controlling them with a joy stick!!!
now, tell me that won't draw a crowd???
So, it's OPEC who is squeezing our gas prices? Or is the "capitalistic" lords of American Energy companies that are in fact controlling our pump prices. Doesn't the Bush family have a stake in Exxon?
I guess one most love the "benevolent" corporations who's job isn't to make the share holders wealthier but to ensure that OPEC doesn't charge to much to the American consumer.
In your excercise, who's the Bully and who's the Toddler? Fittingly, there has only been one person, one nation, and one group ever to use Atomics against the fellow denizen's of the world. And it' wasn't Al Queda.
Man, I came up with this idea while in college, to bad, no one at the d*mn med school would listen to me, 5 years later, some other lame guy is going to get rich.
Any thing man understands our terrestrial rivals to a point have been helpful but in the end are detrimental as a collective focus is far stronger than splintered focus. To conquer space it will require a unilateral effort in terms of effort, expenditure, and know how. Removing the primitive mindset of terrestrial rivalry will be one of the cornerstone of advancing beyond a primitive civilization.
And you are correct, "we shouldn't be having these rivalries at home", however, lesser minds haven't been able to fathom any other existence.
get the "death" penalty. I think the guys from Enron and MCI, etc, who cost 10's of millions of damage in the form of lost pensions and 401K's for their employees should recieve an equivalent "death" penalty.
I thought Intel licensed the Athlon 64 architecture from AMD when they invented the Pentium-M. Cough, cough, what's that Intel you mean that MHz isn't everything?
Bull $hit it happened once with the K5. Since, then, it's been Intel with the vaporware since then. Also, the problems with the K5 had nothing to do with volume, it had to do with scaling. The K5 used a very short pipeline, short pipe lines allow for superb efficiency, lower heat and power consumption, but an increased difficulty in scaling the processors frequency. The K5 did not scale well, clock for clock, it trounced the Pentium but getting to higher frequencies were difficult. And back then all people saw was the MHz number, it's the first time, AMD used the PR system, now even Intel has conceded MHz is just a number akin to Horsepower a general idea, but not all the story. Intel had to undue it's own marketing when it introduced the Pentium M a superb CPU but lower clock.
The K5 is the opposite problem of the Pentium IV. The Pentium IV extremely long pipeline which allows for high frequency bumps relatively easy, but with increased power consumption and heat production and huge penalties for mis-predicted branches. The K5 release did not have volume issues, it had consumer mind share issues as although lower clocked K5's could compete with anyting Intel offered, all consumers wanted to see was high clock frequencies. And the K5 architectual didn't gain scale easily. AMD has plenty of FAB space, and a great architecture in the Athlon, scales well (given it's semi-smart cpu design), it was designed from the get go to handle multiple cores, has on-die memory controller, hyper transport linking, and non-shared FSB bussing system. AMD has kicked Intel's a$$ in meeting deadlines in the last 7 years, Intel has been the vaporware king.
I'm still waiting for the following,
AMD get's much of it's FAB technology from IMB, they invented SOI and the first to introduce Copper interconnects. Something AMD licensed from IBM, so, no AMD has no need to steal from Intel on this front.
The reason why Intel rushes to change Fab process I.e. the transition from.18 to.13 to.09, etc... was because they have to, traditionally there CPU's ran hotter and consumed more power. This was due to Intels fondness for deeper pipelines, which allowed for easy scaling of frequency, but increased heat and power consumption. Intel pushed the MHz=power argument, although, it wasn't the case just part of the story so they had to keep shrinking quickly. AMD traditionally used the "smart-cpu" philosophy more efficient processing at the expense of easy frequency scaling. So, AMD had no need to shrink manufacturing process as quickly because they had a better designed CPU.
Prime Example, remember the Athlon was the first to hit 1GHz. Intel said they'd hit 1GHz to, but we never saw a P3 with that frequency until the copermine some 5 months after the announcement, because, Intel needed a die shrink to counteract the heat the P3 would produce and power a P3 1GHz would consume at that frequency.
The die shrinks had to do with neccessity for Intel, AMD could just as easily do the same thing, but they don't need or want to. Hence, they mature their process, why, do you think they moved of the time table for x2 athlon desktop processors by almost 3 months, their shrink to 90mm transistors went very well because they technology matured, no need to rush.
Intel is rolling in fab capacity, that's exactly why Apple chose them instead of AMD. When your main supply problems have been vendors #3 and #4 for so many years, you don't go with vendor #2. You go with #1.
Once again, a fallacy, AMD easily could absorb Apple , Apple is like the #12 PC manufacturer, they sell roughly 2 million units that's nothing. Especially, since that wouldn't even be a fraction of AMD's largest OEM suppliers demand HP. Furthermore, AMD has 2 of the largest FABS in the world, Fab 25(Austin) and Fab 30 (Dresdan), I believe Fab 30 might be the largest. This capacity thing is once again, FUD, and far from the truth, especially considering that Apple is a small large OEM.
AMD has been around since 1969, Intel was founded in 1968.
IBM did not birth AMD. AMD had licensed to clone Intel CPU's well before IBM had anything to do with either company.
Intel did not force AMD to stop making clones, AMD chose to stop licensing as a clone, upon the purchase NexGen in 1994. AMD started producing independant designs at this point. NexGen did not clone Intels x86 processors, in fact, NexGen produced the first 586 processor before the Pentium. 586 being a processor with features considered 5th generation x86 processor (it's not an official standard).
I think Intel has produced better chips the AMD, certianly cooler and quiter.
This proves to me that you have no clue as to what a CPU technology entails?
1) Quiter? Since when did the CPU's make noise? Fans make noise, CPU's don't.
2) Cooler? Please, name one CPU from Intel that is of the same performance of an AMD offering and is cooler? You must be confusing AMD for Cyrix of 1996? AMD has consistently been cooler, plese look the temperature charts. Especially, so because AMD believes in the "smart-cpu" design reduced clcok speed to gain efficiency peformance. Clock speed increases heat and power consumption, and Intel clocks the P IV line higher. Intel is shifting to smart cpu design, and also, why they got rid of the MHz rating, they did it with Pentium M that's why they are clocked much lower than P IV's but perform better. But, they needed to convince people that MHz wasn't everything. Anyway, Intel CPU's with the exception of the Pentium M line is notoriously known for running hotter than AMD's offering, the main culprit the increased frequency of P IV's. Intel
3) Processors that have outperformed the Intel counterparts, K5 > Pentium (1995), K7 (1st Athlon) > Pentium 3 , K8 Athlon > Pentium IV, Opteron > Xeon, in fact, with the exception of Centrino and Pentium M both used in notebooks, Intel hasn't had any innovative processors in the last decade.
4) AMD has proven fore thought, fore example, AMD's dual core architecture vs Intels. It's been known since day one that Athlons were designed for not just dual but multiple cores. That's good engineering. Also, the EV6 Independant bussing system, where multiple cores or multiple processors have an independant bus. Also, not to mention AMD's hypertransport for connecting cores or processors together, genious. Let's not forget AMD's on-die memory controller. Oh, yeah, and the 64 bit x86 extensions.
5) I suggest you do a bit of research before you say what stellar products. Innovation has definitely been in the realm of AMD for some years now, just because you re the biggest, doesn't mean you are remotely the best. Anyone with a neutral view would actually do research and know the products they presume to comment upon. By the way, the Pentium IV architecture is going away for a reason, 3 main reasons, 1) wasn't designed for multiple cores (hmmm AMD did), 2) Netburst BUS system is shared amongst multiple cores and processors (bad, bad, AMD didn't make this mistake),... 3) Intel wants to adopt on-die memory controller ala AMD. Funny, it seems to have been doing alot of copying of AMD as of late, maybe, because AMD actually decided to put time into design and not bank on consumers less than neutral view.
Meanwhile, Intel does nothing but produce its product. Usually it's superior. For 2000-2004, it wasn't. AMD failed to capitalize on that opportunity, and are now crying that simple competition is unfair.
You are absolutely wrong on this one. AMD was founded in 1969 and Intel was founded in 1968. The 4086 assuring the x86 era was introduced in '71 by Intel. AMD had been an Intel clone, i.e. licensed to make clones of x86 processors, until 1993, so they were never really a competitor to Intel, but a cloner.
1) In 1993 NexGen introduced the first 586 processor,
2) In 1994 AMD purchases NexGen
3) In 1995 Intel would produce the Pentium 586 hence "pent" in pentium almost a year after NexGen introduced the NexGen 586.
4) In 1995 AMD introduced it's first non-cloned x86 compatible processor, upon the NexGen purchase, AMD stopped cloning Intel CPU's, the Nex Gen 586 ws reworked and the AMD K5 was born. The K5 would be AMD's first independant design. At this point you can call Intel and AMD true competitors. Oh and the K5 could divide right, unlike the Pentium.
The K5 kicked the Pentiums proverbial a$$ but had production issues, I.e. it did not scale easily, but clock for clock their was no contest. This would be no problem in this day and age as people are slowly starting to understand clock speed, is not the only factor in performance, notice Intel moved to a numbering system, they had to convince people the now super successful Pentium M, which were clocked slower than Pentium IV's were better peformers. It's the "smart-cpu design (more efficient harder to scale)" vs the "brute force cpu design (less efficient easier to scale)", by the way Intel is moving away from brute force, hence, end of Pentium IV, I guess AMD was right.
5) So, 1995 in reality performance went to AMD not the Intel and the Pentium, Intel did a much better job marketing and delivering. However, AMD was venturing into new territory new longer an Intel cloner. Hence the beginning of the FUD, AMD can't deliver, isn't compatible since it's not a cloner any longer, yada... yadayada...
6) Years that AMD has held the performance and innovation crown in x86 processing, 1995, (Beggining of K7 (aka Athlon) lines until now 1998 - present.
7) Years that Intel has held the performance and innovation crown in the x86 arena 1971-1994*** (Only x86 producer, everyone else copied Intel design exactly until this point), 1996-1998
So, you see Intel in reality hasn't been producing better products since someone actually attempted to compete with them.
... becasue Dell has chosen to go with the better chip manufacture, Intel.
Define better? I think the slashdotters are perturbed that Intel is not better and has not been better for atleast 6 - 7 years now.
AMD has been better in the following
1) Peformance
2) Price
3) Ability to meet product deadlines and delivery to market
4) Power consumption
5) Innovation
Intel has been better at the following
1) Mindshare
With that said It would be asinine to say Intel has been better, you need to specify at what and what category. This is what slashdotters are against it's the fact that the reality AMD has been more consistent at delivering a product, meeting the market demands, and to top it off has delivered better products than Intel. And just when they were making headway based on these facts , Intel without doing anything on the product and delivery front, managed to erode AMD practise.
The bottom line AMD was beating Intel on all the fronts Intel supposedly said they were better at, and Intels only way to counteract was to basically throw around it's weight and force OEM to use Intel products or else. As consumers were slowly becoming aware that perhaps Intel's FUD was just that FUD and not truth about their products. After all, what other CPU manufacturer can introduce a CPU that doesn't divide correctly, twice, and then claim their processors or more stable, reliable, and compatible and people would believe it.
Well, I don't hold a grudge against 'em. I prefer Athlon 64's to P4's, but upto the the P4 Intel seemed to make chips that were a bit faster, if a little expensive.
You mean the originally Pentium that was outperformed by the AMD K5 back in 1995?
Intel Inside hell of a marketing campaign seems to still be working?
Or how about that P3 Coppermine 1GHz that didn't exist. Oh wait, it was AMD that introduced the first 1GHz processor.
How about until about 1998 well before the Pentium IV, Intel seemed to usually have the performance crown. It's been a good 7 years since Intel has held a peformance lead on AMD. The minute the Athlon architecture arrived it's been all AMD, by the way, you know all those DEC Alpha engrs, they wound up in Austin, TX. And you wonder why the Athlon line has been so powerful.
Funny thing how history doesn't equate to yourstory.
I don't think so. It's similar to the netscape issue on Windows. It's not so much that MS had to make Netscape compatible but that MS went out of it's way to make Netscape not compatible.
Someone else pointed out that Intel will disable optimizations such as SSE3 for AMD processors. SSE3 is the same for Intel and AMD, why would Intel not allow the optimized route on
Slashdot Mirror
Oh ... sorry, I thought I was looking at yet another Linux Windows Manager. Is Bill stealing code again.
So that means your wife lives on for another 225 years. No never mind I'll pass.
Are you for real? I can several manufacturers that can produce on and above Intel's level, that are in the semi-conductor industry.
For the neandrathals, wait, that's too nice, as neadrathals had larger brains than humans, well for the archaic homonids with the itchy troll trigger fingers, my point ... is whatever reason the folks at Apple or most analyst will "pitch" about Apple going Intel is in short B.S.
Hence the blah, blah, blah ... I thought that was self evident, but I'm wrong. I guess all the rumors I've been hearing about ./ are true. Exit stage left.
Steve Jobs, "blah, blah, blah .... "
Your lips are moving and all can feel is the wind blowing.
No, no, why leave it to imagination let's just have actual people die, it worked for the Romans, and the Colliseum was the largest stadium/dome ever built for more than 2000 years, come on, they were on to something.
I don't want to turn this into a political diatribe, but this has little do with president, blacks or white, this is purely economics and class issue (as racism is simply a manifestation there of) etc ... etc ... there are 3 truths about human beings and political systems whether they be dictatorship, democracy, monarchy, etc ... etc ...
#1) Those who have power and wealth will rule over the masses.
(When was the last time you saw a poor guy as president, or even a governer, or congressman???)
#2) Those, who have power and weatlh will put at the forefront the concerns of other individuals who have power and wealth.
(The old boy network works all the way from the janitors hanging out together excluding the new guy, to the president being close friends of certain former CEO of Haliburton, ... who is he going to be concerned some poor smuck in east bumble f*ck Carolina, or his old childhood friends welfares? Aside from election time, he could careless about the smuck)
#3) Only a fool would believe in the benevolance of man, and 99% of people are fools, "as they say individuals are smart, but people are stupid" ... people will believe whatever they are told to believe and want to believe. Ask yourself in the last 5 years and beyond how many "halve truths" have you been told. You'd rather believe that some guy 3000 miles away is plotting your demise. See rule #1 about wealth and power, wealthy and powerful, look out for one another period. And this is true across borders as well as with in.
I was being fescicious about the Bushes owning stock in Exxon, the point is that they are wealthy family, who's made money in Oil, Energy, and Defense.
Look they said as a spectator sport the Pro Video Gaming league just isn't exciting enough ... I was just throwing out a suggestion, hockey had it's fights, boxing has it's ear biting, baseball has it's bats, football has T.O. and ... well what does the pro video gaming league, have, ... you got any better ideas I'm all ears.
Look they said as a spectator sport the Pro Video Gaming league just isn't exciting enough ... I was just throwing out a suggestion, hockey had it's fights, boxing has it's ear biting, baseball has it's bats, and ... well what does the pro video gaming league, have, ... you got any better ideas I'm all ears.
Start using real people electronically controlled via the video game, that way when you kill someone, guess what, someone really dies, even better you know that pit of lava you just jumped into, well, guess what someone really just jumped into a pit of lava. I'd liken it to running man, but these people have no free will, you are controlling them with a joy stick!!! now, tell me that won't draw a crowd???
So, it's OPEC who is squeezing our gas prices? Or is the "capitalistic" lords of American Energy companies that are in fact controlling our pump prices. Doesn't the Bush family have a stake in Exxon? I guess one most love the "benevolent" corporations who's job isn't to make the share holders wealthier but to ensure that OPEC doesn't charge to much to the American consumer. In your excercise, who's the Bully and who's the Toddler? Fittingly, there has only been one person, one nation, and one group ever to use Atomics against the fellow denizen's of the world. And it' wasn't Al Queda.
Man, I came up with this idea while in college, to bad, no one at the d*mn med school would listen to me, 5 years later, some other lame guy is going to get rich.
That's f*cking funny as hell, man, can I get a mod of +10 on that one.
Any thing man understands our terrestrial rivals to a point have been helpful but in the end are detrimental as a collective focus is far stronger than splintered focus. To conquer space it will require a unilateral effort in terms of effort, expenditure, and know how. Removing the primitive mindset of terrestrial rivalry will be one of the cornerstone of advancing beyond a primitive civilization.
And you are correct, "we shouldn't be having these rivalries at home", however, lesser minds haven't been able to fathom any other existence.
get the "death" penalty. I think the guys from Enron and MCI, etc, who cost 10's of millions of damage in the form of lost pensions and 401K's for their employees should recieve an equivalent "death" penalty.
I thought Intel licensed the Athlon 64 architecture from AMD when they invented the Pentium-M. Cough, cough, what's that Intel you mean that MHz isn't everything?
Bull $hit it happened once with the K5. Since, then, it's been Intel with the vaporware since then. Also, the problems with the K5 had nothing to do with volume, it had to do with scaling. The K5 used a very short pipeline, short pipe lines allow for superb efficiency, lower heat and power consumption, but an increased difficulty in scaling the processors frequency. The K5 did not scale well, clock for clock, it trounced the Pentium but getting to higher frequencies were difficult. And back then all people saw was the MHz number, it's the first time, AMD used the PR system, now even Intel has conceded MHz is just a number akin to Horsepower a general idea, but not all the story. Intel had to undue it's own marketing when it introduced the Pentium M a superb CPU but lower clock. The K5 is the opposite problem of the Pentium IV. The Pentium IV extremely long pipeline which allows for high frequency bumps relatively easy, but with increased power consumption and heat production and huge penalties for mis-predicted branches. The K5 release did not have volume issues, it had consumer mind share issues as although lower clocked K5's could compete with anyting Intel offered, all consumers wanted to see was high clock frequencies. And the K5 architectual didn't gain scale easily. AMD has plenty of FAB space, and a great architecture in the Athlon, scales well (given it's semi-smart cpu design), it was designed from the get go to handle multiple cores, has on-die memory controller, hyper transport linking, and non-shared FSB bussing system. AMD has kicked Intel's a$$ in meeting deadlines in the last 7 years, Intel has been the vaporware king. I'm still waiting for the following,
1) My Pentium that divides right
2) My 1GHz P3 coppermine
3) My Merced Itanium
AMD get's much of it's FAB technology from IMB, they invented SOI and the first to introduce Copper interconnects. Something AMD licensed from IBM, so, no AMD has no need to steal from Intel on this front. The reason why Intel rushes to change Fab process I.e. the transition from .18 to .13 to .09, etc ... was because they have to, traditionally there CPU's ran hotter and consumed more power. This was due to Intels fondness for deeper pipelines, which allowed for easy scaling of frequency, but increased heat and power consumption. Intel pushed the MHz=power argument, although, it wasn't the case just part of the story so they had to keep shrinking quickly. AMD traditionally used the "smart-cpu" philosophy more efficient processing at the expense of easy frequency scaling. So, AMD had no need to shrink manufacturing process as quickly because they had a better designed CPU.
Prime Example, remember the Athlon was the first to hit 1GHz. Intel said they'd hit 1GHz to, but we never saw a P3 with that frequency until the copermine some 5 months after the announcement, because, Intel needed a die shrink to counteract the heat the P3 would produce and power a P3 1GHz would consume at that frequency.
The die shrinks had to do with neccessity for Intel, AMD could just as easily do the same thing, but they don't need or want to. Hence, they mature their process, why, do you think they moved of the time table for x2 athlon desktop processors by almost 3 months, their shrink to 90mm transistors went very well because they technology matured, no need to rush.
Intel is rolling in fab capacity, that's exactly why Apple chose them instead of AMD. When your main supply problems have been vendors #3 and #4 for so many years, you don't go with vendor #2. You go with #1. Once again, a fallacy, AMD easily could absorb Apple , Apple is like the #12 PC manufacturer, they sell roughly 2 million units that's nothing. Especially, since that wouldn't even be a fraction of AMD's largest OEM suppliers demand HP. Furthermore, AMD has 2 of the largest FABS in the world, Fab 25(Austin) and Fab 30 (Dresdan), I believe Fab 30 might be the largest. This capacity thing is once again, FUD, and far from the truth, especially considering that Apple is a small large OEM.
AMD has been around since 1969, Intel was founded in 1968. IBM did not birth AMD. AMD had licensed to clone Intel CPU's well before IBM had anything to do with either company. Intel did not force AMD to stop making clones, AMD chose to stop licensing as a clone, upon the purchase NexGen in 1994. AMD started producing independant designs at this point. NexGen did not clone Intels x86 processors, in fact, NexGen produced the first 586 processor before the Pentium. 586 being a processor with features considered 5th generation x86 processor (it's not an official standard).
I think Intel has produced better chips the AMD, certianly cooler and quiter. This proves to me that you have no clue as to what a CPU technology entails? 1) Quiter? Since when did the CPU's make noise? Fans make noise, CPU's don't. 2) Cooler? Please, name one CPU from Intel that is of the same performance of an AMD offering and is cooler? You must be confusing AMD for Cyrix of 1996? AMD has consistently been cooler, plese look the temperature charts. Especially, so because AMD believes in the "smart-cpu" design reduced clcok speed to gain efficiency peformance. Clock speed increases heat and power consumption, and Intel clocks the P IV line higher. Intel is shifting to smart cpu design, and also, why they got rid of the MHz rating, they did it with Pentium M that's why they are clocked much lower than P IV's but perform better. But, they needed to convince people that MHz wasn't everything. Anyway, Intel CPU's with the exception of the Pentium M line is notoriously known for running hotter than AMD's offering, the main culprit the increased frequency of P IV's. Intel 3) Processors that have outperformed the Intel counterparts, K5 > Pentium (1995), K7 (1st Athlon) > Pentium 3 , K8 Athlon > Pentium IV, Opteron > Xeon, in fact, with the exception of Centrino and Pentium M both used in notebooks, Intel hasn't had any innovative processors in the last decade. 4) AMD has proven fore thought, fore example, AMD's dual core architecture vs Intels. It's been known since day one that Athlons were designed for not just dual but multiple cores. That's good engineering. Also, the EV6 Independant bussing system, where multiple cores or multiple processors have an independant bus. Also, not to mention AMD's hypertransport for connecting cores or processors together, genious. Let's not forget AMD's on-die memory controller. Oh, yeah, and the 64 bit x86 extensions. 5) I suggest you do a bit of research before you say what stellar products. Innovation has definitely been in the realm of AMD for some years now, just because you re the biggest, doesn't mean you are remotely the best. Anyone with a neutral view would actually do research and know the products they presume to comment upon. By the way, the Pentium IV architecture is going away for a reason, 3 main reasons, 1) wasn't designed for multiple cores (hmmm AMD did), 2) Netburst BUS system is shared amongst multiple cores and processors (bad, bad, AMD didn't make this mistake), ... 3) Intel wants to adopt on-die memory controller ala AMD. Funny, it seems to have been doing alot of copying of AMD as of late, maybe, because AMD actually decided to put time into design and not bank on consumers less than neutral view.
Meanwhile, Intel does nothing but produce its product. Usually it's superior. For 2000-2004, it wasn't. AMD failed to capitalize on that opportunity, and are now crying that simple competition is unfair. You are absolutely wrong on this one. AMD was founded in 1969 and Intel was founded in 1968. The 4086 assuring the x86 era was introduced in '71 by Intel. AMD had been an Intel clone, i.e. licensed to make clones of x86 processors, until 1993, so they were never really a competitor to Intel, but a cloner. 1) In 1993 NexGen introduced the first 586 processor, ... yadayada...
6) Years that AMD has held the performance and innovation crown in x86 processing, 1995, (Beggining of K7 (aka Athlon) lines until now 1998 - present.
7) Years that Intel has held the performance and innovation crown in the x86 arena 1971-1994*** (Only x86 producer, everyone else copied Intel design exactly until this point), 1996-1998
So, you see Intel in reality hasn't been producing better products since someone actually attempted to compete with them.
2) In 1994 AMD purchases NexGen
3) In 1995 Intel would produce the Pentium 586 hence "pent" in pentium almost a year after NexGen introduced the NexGen 586.
4) In 1995 AMD introduced it's first non-cloned x86 compatible processor, upon the NexGen purchase, AMD stopped cloning Intel CPU's, the Nex Gen 586 ws reworked and the AMD K5 was born. The K5 would be AMD's first independant design. At this point you can call Intel and AMD true competitors. Oh and the K5 could divide right, unlike the Pentium.
The K5 kicked the Pentiums proverbial a$$ but had production issues, I.e. it did not scale easily, but clock for clock their was no contest. This would be no problem in this day and age as people are slowly starting to understand clock speed, is not the only factor in performance, notice Intel moved to a numbering system, they had to convince people the now super successful Pentium M, which were clocked slower than Pentium IV's were better peformers. It's the "smart-cpu design (more efficient harder to scale)" vs the "brute force cpu design (less efficient easier to scale)", by the way Intel is moving away from brute force, hence, end of Pentium IV, I guess AMD was right. 5) So, 1995 in reality performance went to AMD not the Intel and the Pentium, Intel did a much better job marketing and delivering. However, AMD was venturing into new territory new longer an Intel cloner. Hence the beginning of the FUD, AMD can't deliver, isn't compatible since it's not a cloner any longer, yada
Well, I don't hold a grudge against 'em. I prefer Athlon 64's to P4's, but upto the the P4 Intel seemed to make chips that were a bit faster, if a little expensive. You mean the originally Pentium that was outperformed by the AMD K5 back in 1995? Intel Inside hell of a marketing campaign seems to still be working? Or how about that P3 Coppermine 1GHz that didn't exist. Oh wait, it was AMD that introduced the first 1GHz processor. How about until about 1998 well before the Pentium IV, Intel seemed to usually have the performance crown. It's been a good 7 years since Intel has held a peformance lead on AMD. The minute the Athlon architecture arrived it's been all AMD, by the way, you know all those DEC Alpha engrs, they wound up in Austin, TX. And you wonder why the Athlon line has been so powerful. Funny thing how history doesn't equate to yourstory.
I don't think so. It's similar to the netscape issue on Windows. It's not so much that MS had to make Netscape compatible but that MS went out of it's way to make Netscape not compatible. Someone else pointed out that Intel will disable optimizations such as SSE3 for AMD processors. SSE3 is the same for Intel and AMD, why would Intel not allow the optimized route on