Will Intel catch up to AMD this year?

  • Thread starter Thread starter wizzzer
  • Start date Start date
W

wizzzer

They claim they will surpass AMD with new cpu's this year - more
powerful CPU's with less power consumption. Do you think this is true
or will AMD continue to stay ahead? Is Dell still using only Intel
CPU's?
 
Is Dell still using only Intel CPU's?
Click to expand...

It appears so (sigh). I find it hilarious when they say "We take your
gaming experience as seriously as you do" and then they don't use AMD
processors which have been proven time and again to be better gaming
processors!

What they really should be saying is "We take your gaming experience as
seriously as you do, if you don't mind us using an inferior gaming
processor" :)
 
They claim they will surpass AMD with new cpu's this year - more
powerful CPU's with less power consumption. Do you think this is true
Click to expand...

Yep, Intel's new chip are looking good....
http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2713
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=4843&page=1
or will AMD continue to stay ahead?
Click to expand...
I doubt it, AMD's new AM2 doesn't look too promising.
Is Dell still using only Intel CPU's?
Click to expand...
Yep, I doubt they'll ever use AMD.

Ed
 
They claim they will surpass AMD with new cpu's this year - more
powerful CPU's with less power consumption. Do you think this is true
or will AMD continue to stay ahead? Is Dell still using only Intel
CPU's?
Click to expand...

I'd be surprised if any good engineers are still at Intel. Esp in
management positions. The P4 took years of good experience out of
that company. Oh, and then there's the top management with no
engineering degrees.
 
Judging from their track record,I doubt Intel will ever catch up,they've
gotten fat and lazy,and lack AMD's drive and innovation.As for Dell,if they
want to sell any of those overpriced,overhyped XPS systems,they'd better
make the switch to AMD soon.Me,I'll go with a custom system from a real
builder with real support anytime.
 
The stuff I heard about AMD in the late 90's might still come back to
haunt them. I know they had issues getting into ceartain manufacturing
settings. Issues with excel and other stuff of the like. If AMD has
shaped up and not had anymore parity errors of the olden days then YES
They could forseeable start ripping into intel badly.

Remeber RDRAM (Rimms) and jumping on the pentium pro arcitechure too
soon? Intel has the problem with "were right because we're the biggest
and not because it the best" With that attitude it's not a matter of IF
but WHEN they start hurting.(they are not hurting as of yet)

They are sucking as far as taking care of employees as well as rampant
political BS getting in the way of engineering and making this stuff
work.
 
Do you think this is true or will AMD continue to stay ahead?

I have no actual idea, but AMD and Intel are starting to remind me of Shick
and Gillette. AMD is rumored to be coming out with a 4 core CPU chip
soon. Next thing you know Intel will come out with a hyperthreaded 4 core
system that has a little battery that makes it vibrate to "energize the
electrons" :-).
--email: (e-mail address removed) icbm: Delray Beach, FL |
<URL:http://home.att.net/~Tom.Horsley> Free Software and Politics <<==+
 
I'd be surprised if any good engineers are still at Intel. Esp in
management positions. The P4 took years of good experience out of
that company. Oh, and then there's the top management with no
engineering degrees.
Click to expand...

Intel has *never* inflated any of their predictions or benchmarks...

But they have a loooooooong way to go to catch up!

Bobby
 
Isaac W. said:
The stuff I heard about AMD in the late 90's might still come back to
haunt them. I know they had issues getting into ceartain manufacturing
settings. Issues with excel and other stuff of the like. If AMD has
shaped up and not had anymore parity errors of the olden days then YES
They could forseeable start ripping into intel badly.

Remeber RDRAM (Rimms) and jumping on the pentium pro arcitechure too
soon? Intel has the problem with "were right because we're the biggest
and not because it the best" With that attitude it's not a matter of IF
but WHEN they start hurting.(they are not hurting as of yet)

They are sucking as far as taking care of employees as well as rampant
political BS getting in the way of engineering and making this stuff
work.
Click to expand...

None of what you bring up has any bearing. AMD has FAB36 up and running,
and it is state of the art. It is superior to any of the fabs that Intel
has. RDRAM failed because of marketing. Intel is fat and lazy, and will
ultimately take the easy route, and I predict that they never will catch up
completely.

Intel hangs on to the Northbridge FSB, does not make true dual core, refuses
to move the memory controller on-die, etc. Intel hung on to hyperthreading
far too long...it was never supported. Intel just does not have a clue.
Until June of 2005, their whitepaper was still claiming no one wanted 64 bit
processors.

Bobby
 
Whether intel catches up and surpasses or not I'm sticking with AMD.

PS Dell , HP, Compaq and any other quack ripoffs suck. Alienware and Falcon
Northwest is the way to go if you want to buy a computer.

--
XP2600@171 [email protected]
PC3200 Samsung 512mb, SB Live OEM
AIW9600XT, A7N8X-X
WD120gb + 80gb HD 8mb buffers
Plextor PX-712A, Liteon 1693S 16X Dual Layer
Pioneer DVR-110D 16X - 4X Dual Layer
Thermaltake Lanfire, 420 Watt PS
ViewSonic 19" A91f+ CRT
Micrsoft Sidewinder Precision 2 Joystick

Overall Score-2066, cpu_score-2926
in 3DMark2005 basic 1078X768, No AA
 
NoNoBadDog! said:
None of what you bring up has any bearing. AMD has FAB36 up and
running, and it is state of the art. It is superior to any of the
fabs that Intel has. RDRAM failed because of marketing. Intel is
fat and lazy, and will ultimately take the easy route, and I predict
that they never will catch up completely.

Intel hangs on to the Northbridge FSB, does not make true dual core,
refuses to move the memory controller on-die, etc. Intel hung on to
hyperthreading far too long...it was never supported. Intel just
does not have a clue. Until June of 2005, their whitepaper was still
claiming no one wanted 64 bit processors.
Click to expand...

I heard something about this up and coming company called Transmeta making
some neato low-power mobile chip... sounds exciting! ;)
 
VanShania said:
Whether intel catches up and surpasses or not I'm sticking with AMD.
Click to expand...

Personally, I think that's somewhat short-sighted.

You're saying you'd buy an inferior processor just for spite. I buy the
hardware that performs the best for the money I wish to spend. I don't
care if it's AMD or Intel...I want the best my dollar will provide.

Having said that, I do like that AMD is pushing things to compete. But
then they have to in order to survive because Intel is the incumbent and
AMD needs to be "more" rather than just the same. The masses know the
Intel name due to marketing, and AMD has to be better in order to sell.

My current system is AMD based. But my previous system was Intel because
AMD had fallen behind at the time. Before that my system was Intel as
well because it was better. But before that it was AMD because it
performed better, and before that one it was AMD too.

Now if AMD was consistently ahead of Intel, I'd stick with them. But
they really disappointed me with the K5-K7 series. The price performance
ratio just wasn't there, at least when I was shopping around.

The Intel Conroe is looking very promising, and quad-core is just around
the corner. Intel may leap-frog AMD again, and if so, I may switch back
to Intel. But since my next purchase is a couple of years away, things
may change by then.

I like AMD over Intel because they're the underdog. But I can't ignore
Intel simply because they're the big guy. If it's time to upgrade and
AMD isn't doing better than Intel, I have to buy whatever produces the
best results.
 
NoNoBadDog! said:
Intel hangs on to the Northbridge FSB, does not make true dual core, refuses
to move the memory controller on-die, etc. Intel hung on to hyperthreading
far too long...it was never supported. Intel just does not have a clue.
Click to expand...

They've been a little ignorant lately, but that's changing.
Until June of 2005, their whitepaper was still claiming no one wanted 64 bit
processors.
Click to expand...

I don't think they said no one "wanted" 64-bit. I believe they said no
one "needed" 64-bit.

And to a large extent that's true. I have a 64-bit processor. But it
doesn't really offer me anything special. A dual-core 32-bit processor
would be just as good.

So far I haven't seen any significant performance differences with
64-bit processors, operating systems, and software. The change from 16
to 32-bit was noticeable, but so far I'm still waiting to see an
improvement with 64-bit. Right now, 64-bit is reserved for servers and
systems that have unique needs. The vast majority have no need of 64-bit
processors, operating systems, or programs, yet.

Having said that, it's still VERY early in the 64-bit game. Windows
Vista 64-bit will really push the software companies to make native
programs and drivers, and hopefully we'll see something worthwhile at
that time.
 
Bill said:
They've been a little ignorant lately, but that's changing.


I don't think they said no one "wanted" 64-bit. I believe they said no
one "needed" 64-bit.

And to a large extent that's true. I have a 64-bit processor. But it
doesn't really offer me anything special. A dual-core 32-bit processor
would be just as good.

So far I haven't seen any significant performance differences with
64-bit processors, operating systems, and software. The change from 16
to 32-bit was noticeable, but so far I'm still waiting to see an
improvement with 64-bit. Right now, 64-bit is reserved for servers and
systems that have unique needs. The vast majority have no need of 64-bit
processors, operating systems, or programs, yet.

Having said that, it's still VERY early in the 64-bit game. Windows
Vista 64-bit will really push the software companies to make native
programs and drivers, and hopefully we'll see something worthwhile at
that time.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, what is vista going to offer that the XP 64 OS
didn't? I've put off buying the WinXP64 because of all the complaints I've
seen concerning lack of drivers, etc... why will vista be any different?

kev
 
kevinbeall said:
Just out of curiosity, what is vista going to offer that the XP 64 OS
didn't? I've put off buying the WinXP64 because of all the complaints
I've seen concerning lack of drivers, etc... why will vista be any
different?

kev
Click to expand...

The two are in no way related. Perhaps you should check out the Windows
Vista website and read up, or simply pick up any computer magazine. Windows
Vista is a new OS, not related to Windows XP or x64.

Bobby
 
kevinbeall said:
Just out of curiosity, what is vista going to offer that the XP 64 OS
didn't? I've put off buying the WinXP64 because of all the complaints I've
seen concerning lack of drivers, etc... why will vista be any different?
Click to expand...

The biggest issue is hardware and software support. The big names in
antivirus programs haven't bothered with x64, and there are still a lot
of peripherals that do not have any 64-bit drivers available for them.
Some will have basic functionality, but that's not enough for many
people.

For instance, my HP printer doesn't have support, my scanner doesn't,
several programs I need are either not supported at all, or are not
properly supported, etc.

Windows x64 is just a basic XP hold-over for users who needed big memory
support until Vista gets released. Windows Vista is quite different and
will be available as several types including 32 and 64-bit versions.
 
Bill said:
The biggest issue is hardware and software support. The big names in
antivirus programs haven't bothered with x64, and there are still a lot
of peripherals that do not have any 64-bit drivers available for them.
Some will have basic functionality, but that's not enough for many
people.

For instance, my HP printer doesn't have support, my scanner doesn't,
several programs I need are either not supported at all, or are not
properly supported, etc.

Windows x64 is just a basic XP hold-over for users who needed big memory
support until Vista gets released. Windows Vista is quite different and
will be available as several types including 32 and 64-bit versions.
Click to expand...

Bill;

HP printer drivers (BETA) are available on www.planetamd64.com for x64.
None for Vista as of yet.

Avast! AVG and Symantec Corporate AV 10.1 work just fine under x64.

Bobby
 
NoNoBadDog! said:
HP printer drivers (BETA) are available on www.planetamd64.com for x64.
None for Vista as of yet.
Click to expand...

I was not aware of that. But since x64 has been out for a year, they
should not still be in beta. They should have been released a year ago
if HP was serious about their support.

I believe HP is waiting for Vista since x64 is not widely used.
Avast! AVG and Symantec Corporate AV 10.1 work just fine under x64.
Click to expand...

I don't care for Avast. It proved to be inconsistent and failed to pass
a few tests I tried on it, and it was a bit of a resource hog. SAV v10
is buggy, and not completely stable which makes it unreliable. Also most
firewall software hasn't been upgraded to work with x64.

Sorry, but even though it works well, runs most of my software (not all
though), and seems stable, there are too many issues with x64 for it to
be a viable option. I'm running 32-bit XP because it does what I need.

Hopefully Vista 64-bit will fix these issues.
 
So far I haven't seen any significant performance differences with
64-bit processors, operating systems, and software.
Click to expand...

You have got to be kidding. We have both Xeon and Opteron servers
at work, and everyone who starts using the Opterons for the first time
spends the first week trying to figure out what went wrong because
it couldn't possibly have finished that fast :-).
 
You have got to be kidding. We have both Xeon and Opteron servers
at work, and everyone who starts using the Opterons for the first time
spends the first week trying to figure out what went wrong because
it couldn't possibly have finished that fast :-).
Click to expand...

Intel Xeon systems don't scale anything like Opteron does, anyone caught
buying Intel 2,4,8-way Xeon servers should be shot on site for being a
dumbass! :)
 
Back
Top