Intel just slapped AMD, and kicked 'em too!

[gonzo_for_civ]

Click Here for article

To make a long story short, Intel has again proved Moore's law true! They have developed a new process for making silicon chips and other devices with millions more transistors and higher quality than whats out there right now. you can look at intel.com and click on their link for different .pdf files to look at about it or you can click on the article above. I'm not going to list all the technical mumbo-jumbo here. Also, they have announced that they are working on a chip codenamed prescott that should run at about 4 Ghz, nearly doubling the speed of todays processors.

AMD better get to work if they want to exist soon!

I can see it now, civ3 will run like a dream!!!!!!!

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Now if only this new chip is priced reasonably....

Civ3 still won't run like the wind, considering all the weird bugs it sometimes throws out.

 

[gonzo_for_civ]

Agreed on both counts. The chip shouldn't be too expensive as it was done using a more advanced process, not just by pumping out the largest amount of dollars on the finest stuff out today, this is new technologoy.

And Civ3 will be fast enough, I'll need another gig of ram and a new video card to make it really really spectacular though.

 

[Sodapop]

Again, that sounds like a marketing campaign from Intel. For the moment, they produce chips 500 Mhz faster and still AMD are better. So now they're going to produce 4 Ghz chips. They will double the speed of the processors, but the motherboards won't follow, and you'll need like 2 Gbs of RAM to make run that thing and see a difference. Intel has always been running for Mhz instead of quality. I bet AMD will come with something like 2 time slower in theory that will end up being faster and heating less. Intel have always used the Mhz run to try to sell their chips, and it seems they still follow that path. They don't impress me with their crap

 

[BlueMonday]

First of all, it is not just about Clock Speed and FSB these are hype numbers that Intel spouts out becuase they commited themselves to an inferior architectectue and figured that thier name would give em the edge with the Sheep (end users) The true preformace measurments are benchmarked by the overall efficency of processing not how fast the CPU can hurry up and wait!

It's all marketing. Intel has long enjoyed a bloated market share because they've always been the first to push clock speeds higher. And because most people are foolish enough to believe it, most of them buy high clock speed CPUs at outrageous prices. Meanwhile, AMD has found ways to increase processor power without strapping a rocket motor to the processor's clock speed, and has found ways to build its chips more efficiently (which means less cost to the end consumer). In many benchmark tests AMD's chips have matched or beaten Intel models with faster clock speeds. It doesn't matter how fast Intel makes their chips, AMD has always made a better chip at a lower price. It's that simple. On a cost for cost basis, AMD cannot be beat.

 

[Incubus0223]

I bet i would never see the difference i got a 128MB RAM so too bad for intel i can't buy the upgrade

 

[CornMaster]

Originally posted by gonzo_for_civ
The chip shouldn't be too expensive as it was done using a more advanced process.....

Yeah....a more advanced process that took 5 years of research and 20 Billion dollars....

Now expensive.

Intel + Performance DOES NOT = Cheap!!

 

[CornMaster]

Originally posted by BlueMonday
First of all, it is not just about Clock Speed and FSB these are hype numbers that Intel spouts out becuase they commited themselves to an inferior architectectue and figured that thier name would give em the edge with the Sheep (end users) The true preformace measurments are benchmarked by the overall efficency of processing not how fast the CPU can hurry up and wait!

Excatly.....Intel's 400MHz bus is just a quad-pumped 100MHz.

Meanwhile, AMD has found ways to increase processor power without strapping a rocket motor to the processor's clock speed, and has found ways to build its chips more efficiently (which means less cost to the end consumer).

This saves money....not new technology

In many benchmark tests AMD's chips have matched or beaten Intel models with faster clock speeds. It doesn't matter how fast Intel makes their chips, AMD has always made a better chip at a lower price.

Well...always a lower price...but 5-8 years ago AMD chips were inferior to Intel. Intel got too confy on top.....and Cyrix and AMD bit their heals. Then AMD even started making inovations to their chips.....like 3DNOW and such. And haven't looked back.

The P4 chip was TOTAL marketing.....take a look at the whitepapers. The chips is poorly designed.....and performs even worse. The name was also changed because PIV is tougher to understand then P4. It runs real fast....but has to repeat 20-30% of it operations due to mistakes....OR....is has a unit that can do 3 things...and another that can do 3. But only puts one bus line between them....so eitherway....it can only do one.

The newer P4's have corrected some of the problems.

It's that simple. On a cost for cost basis, AMD cannot be beat.

Correct.

 

[gonzo_for_civ]

I think you all are using Intel's track record to make a decision about this too early. The new technology may suck, but I'll wait until it's out to make a judgement. But that would be sensible, and too much to ask from the likes of corn ( )

 

[BlueMonday]

I never said it will suck. In fact, I have not, nor have I ever, had a problem with a Intel chip (even my nearly decade old 486 DX still works). All I am trying to say is that AMD is not getting whomped on and for my money, I won't buy anymore Intel chips untill they get far more sensible in both price and performance. I also wanted to illustrate that pushing clock speed doesn't insure better computer performance by any stretch of the imagination...that's what Intel wants you to believe.

 

[starlifter]

Intel has never been inexpensive. You'd all be getting raped right now, if AMD had not worked so hard and taken such big losses to push Intel. Intel absolutely hated AMD because AMD forces Intel to market it's chips at about one THIRD of the price that Intel really wants. I've followed Intel since the mid 1970's, and Intel would like nothing better than to force AMD out, team up with MS (they have already done the latter), and rape the world.

Intel has designed spy and control abilities into its new chips. They want you to pitch your current chips and get the new ones. Intel gets a profit, and MS gets control of everything, everything you do on your PC (if you run MS OSs).


MS Windoze + Intel = Wintel = Fuk the User (Look in the mirror, that's YOU!!)



If you insist on paying the devil (Intel), then under no circumstances should you run MS OSs with future Intel chips.





.

.

.

.

.


You have been warned, and can no longer claim ignorance, or "I don't know computer stuff".

 

[gonzo_for_civ]

Hence the entire reason for my above post.

Starlifter, you won't hear the helicopters coming for you, they're in stealth mode

 

[CornMaster]

Originally posted by gonzo_for_civ
I think you all are using Intel's track record to make a decision about this too early. The new technology may suck, but I'll wait until it's out to make a judgement. But that would be sensible, and too much to ask from the likes of corn ( )

WTH!!!

I never said the chip will be bad.

Your saying chips will be cheaper because of a new manufacturing process.....but you fail to realize how much money then spent making it!

Making the chip might be cheaper/better.....but it's going to cost the consumer a fortune for the first few months/years.

And I said the P4's suck...not the "new process".

When the P2 came out, Intel announced a PIN number on each CPU which would allow people to track the PC's. After the huge fighting that came......they disabled it on future chips.

Everyone should listen to Starlifter and change to Linux....if they care about security.

 

[gonzo_for_civ]

Sarcasm Corn

And I never said it would be cheap, I said it shouldn't be too expensive.

And I said the P4's suck...not the "new process".

When the P2 came out, Intel announced a PIN number on each CPU which would allow people to track the PC's. After the huge fighting that came......they disabled it on future chips.

Blah blah blah blah!

Everyone should listen to Starlifter and change to Linux....if they care about security.

Yes, because we all know the great uses MS will have with your shopping list and your minsweeper high score

I mean, honestly, if you have nothing illegal, what do you have to fear. Do you think MS cares about your personal crap on your computer, they can see every file on my computer and I don't give a damn about it!

 

[CornMaster]

Originally posted by gonzo_for_civ
I mean, honestly, if you have nothing illegal, what do you have to fear. Do you think MS cares about your personal crap on your computer, they can see every file on my computer and I don't give a damn about it!

Lets say you are a programmer......and you just created the most advanced decryption algorithm.

MS captures that info and uses it to either sell as their own, or further protect their data.

Not giving a cent to you.

Wouldn't you be pissed?

But it's not MS I'm afriad...it's crackers. That can use these "gaps" to slide into and do massive damage to the computer and data.

 

[gonzo_for_civ]

Lets say you are a programmer......and you just created the most advanced decryption algorithm.

MS captures that info and uses it to either sell as their own, or further protect their data.

If MS has the time to read every file on every computer then they deserve to have my program!

Wouldn't you be pissed?

Of course

But it's not MS I'm afriad...it's crackers. That can use these "gaps" to slide into and do massive damage to the computer and data.

I don't worry to much about crackers, I have all my programming work and my actual work work on my computer at work which is now using linux. My home stuff that I work on is on a computer not connected to the internet in any way. I'll give MS 1000000 dollars if they can break that.

 

[CornMaster]

Originally posted by gonzo_for_civ
I don't worry to much about crackers, I have all my programming work and my actual work work on my computer at work which is now using linux. My home stuff that I work on is on a computer not connected to the internet in any way. I'll give MS 1000000 dollars if they can break that.

That is EXCATLY our point.

If you value your data or privacy use Linux. And you do. So you proved our point.

 

[gonzo_for_civ]

Oh shut up

I use linux because we were given the choice but it had to be legal. I don't have a legal copy of XP to install so I decided to try out linux on it. It's worked great and me an linux are in love. But I'd never use it on my home PC I'm on now unless Lindows works out great.

 

[Lostman]

The way the market has changed in the last couple of years it's impossable to tell what will happen. That and I think consumers are more educated than they where a few years ago.

Right now you couldn't get me to spend my money on anything but AMD. Sure, you spend a couple hundred dollars on a chip, then you have to spend another 50 clams on good cooling, but it still beats an Intel chip.

That and I don't like the way Intel and MS are so chumy. Makes me nervous.

 

[BlueMonday]

Ah, to hell with both of 'em. We should just go to SPARC.