dannysdailyswrote
[quote:2d8e2b8756="YKhan"]Adorable little Ed Stroglio rant
Hatching Eggs . .
"Remember x86-64? The stick AMD was supposed to beat Intel t deat
with
Then Intel got themselves the same stick, and the would-be beater
found something else to talk about. Yes, AMD is doing better now bu
not because of x86-64. Indeed, AMD's increased fortunes have com wel
after Intel switched
Microsoft came out with a Windows XP for x86-64, but the worl hasn'
exactly stampeded to get it.
http://www.overclockers.com/tips00910
I always thought the reason nobody flocked to XP x64 was becaus
Microsoft delayed and delayed so much to let Intel catch up tha peopl
lost interest in it? I mean you know Microsoft was delaying here eve
Solaris 10 came out for x64 before Windows did, despite startin wor
on it 2 years later
Yousuf Kha
Long Post; bringing in some history to properly answer this question
Yes, good article and that's the reason I never made the switch to 64
I'm still using my XP-3200 400. It still has quite a bit of wo
factor. When I upgrade, what I'm upgrading too; has to wow me fro
what I'm leaving, or I won't waste the money on it. I've not see
anything since my 3200 that can do that. Degrees of performanc
doesn't interest me. Real world performance does
But I do disagree with the author. AMD's Athlon 64 was a large facto
in it's success today, why? Talk, lots of talk
The market finally saw Intel for what it was. Obsolete; and the tal
started with the masses. Intel wanted to keep 64 proprietary
probably for residual income one way or another. They claimed, lik
so many times before on other issues; we, the consumer just didn'
need it
Intel; decided for the entire computer industry; "our good,
what we needed. What really is Intel? It's a processor company
that's all. Who are they to dictate to anybody what "w
need?" Not that that was unusual with Intel though. But, you'
have thought they'd have learned by now with all the other things tha
blew up in there faces. The latest of which is BTX
Remember when Intel said 64 bit could never be physically compatabl
with X86? I do. AMD had to be laughing, and as it kept going, Inte
had to play catch up without any new innovation of their own. I mea
you have to feel sorry for Intel; "Just ramp up the cloc
speed" is their bible. As they caught up in performance (and
lot more heat), AMD just left them in the dust again and again
Once AMD earned "gaming" rights with it's FX, the writin
was on the wall. Gaming is what moves the industry and wh
innovation happens at all; it's what all the talk is centered around
Increases there, is where even Joe sixpack can see it
Maybe you can't afford it, but you wish you had it... That's seriou
talk, know what I mean
Once Intel hit the inevitable thermal threshold the talk became true
obsolete and no where to go. BTX indeed. It's pretty bad when
Pentium M, a substrate of the old P-3, can out game their latest an
greatest P-4's. So much so, that now you can buy full size ATX
motherboards
Today, Intel's talking 45nm, when they have hot spots in the 65; whic
can just about heat your house! They talk about the 45 like it's som
kind of advancement. The only advancement is yield which means mor
processors per wafer, not any better or faster; just more money.
That does you no good if you have no one to sell them too. It jus
doesn't cut it anymore and now, everybody knows it. Marketing isn'
going to help this one
The only edge they ever had was Hyper Threading, which is how old now
The X2 more then took care of that
Intel's latest pathetic attempt at dual core, I'm sorry, is jus
laughable
Now, it seems obvious that Intel has lost it's way. It's changin
it's corporate mission, and even it's corporate logo! Panic has se
in
It's not just talk folks..
Now, it's "cool" to have an AMD. Who'd of ever though
that? I wouldn't of and I've been using AMD since the K6-2 days
But, don't be fooled; that Intel negative talk, by the masses, wa
started by the Athlon 64. That in itself, automatically means more
market share to AMD; anyway you slice or dice it and Dell be d*mned.
Now, AMD has taken on Intel in a full scale frontal assault. Their
only limit is how long it takes to build a factory. Wow, what a nice
place to be. I knew they could do it; ever since that first K6-2!
And still the Intel fanatics say AMD hasn't really hurt Intel. Still,
to this day, and on these forums people say that. That's unreal, what
will it take?
From servers to notebooks to lawsuits; they're not considered fringe
anymore and they are looked at as the market leader of tech. Not
because of size, not because of sales; because of innovation. It is
now seen to be the only one that has it. That in turn, means even
more marketshare. AMD being viable began with the Athlon
Thunderbird. The 64 made them clearly the innovator, Windows or not.
And the result? Intel just missed it numbers. I've been predicting
just this sort of thing for quite a few years now. Get used to it
you Intel lovers out there.
All that said; I never fell for the 64 hype. With no Windows, or
software to properly take advantage of it, what's the point? And, in
all fairness, Windows 64 bit right now, still leaves plenty to want.
Especially in the area of available drivers. Most, still don't have
those. What's the point even now? That's why there's no stampede to
it. I remember all the problems XP caused when it first came out.
Drivers were the issue then as well. Will Vista have a full
assortment of drivers available to it? I doubt it. If it does, then
why doesn't XP 64 have them now?
I'll always believe that Microsoft purposely stalled Windows 64. They
didn't call these machines Win/Tel for no reason. But, it didn't help
Intel at all. The AMD march continued anyway...
Today, the only real difference between the XP-3200 and the Athlon 64
is a small increase in 32 bit performance due to the onboard memory
bus. That's hardly wowing.
The XP-3200 was the last great thing to come down the pike.
Everything else, has, and will continue to be, "waiting for the
eggs to hatch." I'm still waiting... Luckily, I didn't waste
three complete platforms in the wait.
Congratulations to Microsoft, you saved me the cost of three complete
platforms. Not to mention the three complete versions of Windows 64
I would have bought to go with them.
And, my "ancient" 3200 has no problem running a full McAfee
scan, and me working on other things at the same time. Just load
them first.
The only wow factor I've seen come out of the PC business for quite
some time, is video. SLI has it. It's a sad state of affairs when
Nvidia is the only one delivering wow factor that's significant and
tangable for every day use.
Their software engineers seem to keep up without a problem. What
makes them different? Whatever it is, they sure smoked the hell out
of ATI. Cross Fire, like the new Intel dual core, isn't even close.
Sorry about the long post.[/quote:2d8e2b8756]
