Just as ATI said ADIOS to Nvidia, So Doth AMD to Intel

Status
This thread has been Locked and is not open to further replies. Please start a New Thread if you're having a similar issue. View our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.
Joined
Feb 24, 2002
Messages
1,629
Well... kinda. I'm PRO AMD - but Intel P4 is still faster in some areas. Once WIndows64 comes out, it should help a lot with performance thou...

Intel is crying "64bit computing?! Who needs it?!"
 
Joined
Nov 7, 2002
Messages
1,278
Thats what they were saying when the 386 came out (except substitute 32bit for 64bit) then low and behold 7yrs after the 386 was released a 32bit only OS came out.

Lol
 

StillLearnin'

Thread Starter
Joined
Oct 25, 2001
Messages
1,742
Hey now, we build P4s also and a lot of them will scream just like the AMDs. It still boils down to the fact that you can build a QUALITY AMD system that will equal a lesser quality P4 for the same amount of loot. With the NEW Windows release(beta in the 1st quarter of 2004) and the NEW electronic architecture releases in these next few months, a person should buy shares of stock in the pain reliever companies because that's where the REAL money is going to be made!
 

StillLearnin'

Thread Starter
Joined
Oct 25, 2001
Messages
1,742
KeithKman: Did you not understand the article about AMD kicking Intels butt? If not say so and we'll explain how the new architecture works technically.
 
Joined
Dec 28, 2002
Messages
1,983
Originally posted by StillLearnin':
KeithKman: Did you not understand the article about AMD kicking Intels butt? If not say so and we'll explain how the new architecture works technically.
This is just like people say Ford suck and GMC is better, and other people say GMC sucks and Ford is better.

No one wins...
 

Squashman

Trusted Advisor
Joined
Apr 4, 2003
Messages
19,786
The real kicker is that according to the Licensing agreements between Intel and AMD; Intel has the rights to use AMD's 64bit X86 architecture. So whenever Intel feels like putting out a 64 bit X86 chip they can do so with no problem. But rumor has it, that it is already built into the upcoming Prescott Chip.
 
Joined
Feb 24, 2002
Messages
1,629
But you see... Intel is in a BAD position... To put out a 64bit CPU out now will ANGER a lot of their devleopers who have spent (wasted) the past 3 years working on the Itanium (IA-64) which is NOT compatible with x86 (unless through emulation = performance hit) which is more mainstream and where Windows works.

Imagine that.. a "Partner" who has blown hundreds of millions of dollars only to have the company that has been shoving it down their throats say "oh well.. hey! We're going to sell THESE completely different 64bit CPUs since they may sell better..."

Mainstream 64bit computing is very new still... but take a look at pricewatch.com and lets see how many 64bit CPUs are available for purchase: intel = 0, AMD = 10. Cost for an Itanium (hard to pronounce too) is about $2000~3000... AMD starts at $441 and high as $900.

Intel would have a hard time thinking of "following" AMD's lead... :) (hence they say its useless... but not when they were pushing the 386... but at that time, Macs & Amigas were aleady using 32bit CPUs for years).

Again, angry partners can always go to AMD... who doesn't change their socket technology every 6 months.


PS: Ford and GM suck.... get a Honda!
 
Joined
Sep 6, 2003
Messages
261
I just have to wonder how long it will be until this becomes another Nvidia vs. ATI fiasco. As the "My peepee's bigger than your peepee" contest rages on. Who will be the first to release a major POS chip something akin to what Nvidia done with the FX5800. :D

Now I do realize that we consumers can & most likely will benefit from this in the long run, but how many people will get screwed by runnin' out and buying up the first chips to be released, only to find that it really wasn't worth the money? These are the things that run threw my mind as technology rushes forward.
 

StillLearnin'

Thread Starter
Joined
Oct 25, 2001
Messages
1,742
Actually I just posted the link so people that have been inquiring about the new AMD/Intel cpus could get up to speed. The AMD vs Intel and ATI vs Nvidia confab has actually lost a lot of steam in the "real" world usage. AMD is more performance to price effective and Nvidia has more or less shot themselves in the foot with the "new" FX series that was FAR from the promotional yackity-yak in "real" usage. You hit the nail on the head compilerxp!
 
Joined
May 3, 2003
Messages
2,612
And it will be good to see the impact of the PCI-X standard "revolutionising graphics" and the Firewire 800 as the new ethernet standard.
 
Joined
Feb 12, 2003
Messages
3,956
I think Intel is doing the smart thing here let AMD work out the small stuff like the 64 Bit OS, a whole new 64 bit Driver base, 64 bit software titles, and any Bugs that always crop up on new Technology, then they breeze right threw when every thing is established, remember when AMD increase the front side buss from 100MHz to 200MHz Intel’s fastest was 133MHz until the P4's 400MHz, 4 years later by that time all the compatibility problems associated with "multiespeed buss architecture" where mostly fixed. It will probably be a number years before all the bugs are worked out of 64 bit architecture for PC use any way.
 
Status
This thread has been Locked and is not open to further replies. Please start a New Thread if you're having a similar issue. View our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

As Seen On
As Seen On...

Welcome to Tech Support Guy!

Are you looking for the solution to your computer problem? Join our site today to ask your question. This site is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations.

If you're not already familiar with forums, watch our Welcome Guide to get started.

Join over 807,865 other people just like you!

Latest posts

Top