Go Back   Computer Forums > General Computing > Hardware
Click Here to Login
Join Computer forums Today


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-15-2005, 06:02 PM   #41
Guru
 
Lord Kalthorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Britain
Posts: 13,293
Send a message via MSN to Lord Kalthorn
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AMD ZEN
And now kiddies, we learn that the FX line is going dual core, and that AMD is moving into complete 90nm phase.... Intel sucks... and SOI technology is pwning Intel!
Intel Processors are at 60nm now? What in the future... I don't know what SOI technology is - Sons Of Intel perhaps?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giancarlo
What a massive moron. You are just not using the facts. You are a foolish idiot. The Intel EE is a crappy processor with what.. 28kb of cache... thanks AMD Zen. Honorable overclocking my rear end... it doesn't make a bit of the difference if Intel can overclock, because AMD can do it just as well if not better.
Haha; they can do it; but wherever Honourable Overclocking may be in your anatomy it is the same thing - Intel users have got more power out of their Intels through Overclocking and any AMD overclocker can dream of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giancarlo
I don't think Intel will be able to change their statist market strategy which is proving a bit of a problem.
Market Strategy is Evil anyway. Market strategy is propaganda; and I would have thought you as an Anti-Fascist would be against such things?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giancarlo
They said 2004 "will be a great year for Intel". Intel has been behind in releasing its CPUs on time.
The will be a great year for Intel is not the point of the point - the point was that it refered to the release of the Dual Processor Cores in 2005. They would have to be a good deal behind; which they won't, to not release this year. I suppose we shall see though...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giancarlo
And Intel only has what? 28kb of L1 Cache? You my friend are foolish beyond belief.
I don't know L1 Cache specifications, and although it is more important technically - it is not. The L1 Cache in an AMD is below par, the L1 Cache in an Intel is on track. 28kb for a 32-Bit Processor is reasonable; the numbers are not that long and the processor is not going to keep much in the L1 Cache. The 128kb or so in an AMD as AMD Zen said; is not enough for a 64-bit Processor and it will be realised when the programs come out if they stick to that sort of Cache. We both know conversion tables for 32-bit to 64-bit, and while the L1 growth cannot equal the Bits growth - its got to be more than 5 times, if not 10 or 20 times, to make up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giancarlo
They are not processors? What are they then? They are processors.
They're Budget Processors Not real Processors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giancarlo
Intel is still shit because it is based on antiquated architecture and bad marketing strategy.
The same Bad Architecture AMD is slamming together into a vague market oppertunity for the AMD64? Marketting stratagy I cannot discuss - I am not an Open-Market person and will never be; but the AMD64s are merely boshed up Intel Processors, the same sort of boshing done to the EMTs except earlier. Microsoft missed the start of the Internet - Microsoft is on over 80% of all Browsers used. Being the first; is rarely being the worst. It will give Intel a chance to do what Intel have always done - innovate regardless of the market and continue to bring out top of the line Processors for those who have the taste to buy them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giancarlo
Apple is posting monetary gains too, but is losing market share in the personal computing market. You're an idiot... you can't even speak right... "LOSSES", not "looses". AMD has posted consistent gains in its market share, chipping away at Intel. The big crap company.
Touchet; Touchet. Intel Market share losses are based soley on the AMD64; not because of better processors particularly - before 64s AMD were not making a good deal of progress. But because people want 64-bit Processors; even myself. When Intel get in, they will get in hard with a theoretically Quad-Core Processor with at last the Software to back it at 64-bits and at 60nm. With superior L2 Cache and hopefully a better rounded approach to L1 Cache, they will gain whatever Market Share they lost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giancarlo
Nobody shoots me down, moron.
It was a pretty good post. His opinion on it should not really be under attack without provokation shoud it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMD Zen
Right Corolla, right. That integrated memory controller is awesome, and allows for lightning fast access times, and the SOI (Silicon on Interconnect) is ingenius!! Intel is too stupid to use Silicon, they use the cave man, copper.. UGGG> LMAO!!
We all know Silicon is a quite fix. Carbon Tubes and such like are the only reasonable way forward and translating to Silicon is a marketting move to get the responce you have given. The transition to Silicon is a short stopper on Murphy's Law and paying out to stopper it is not as good as paying out to jump its next barrier as Intel are. Its not worth wasting the money.

The Opterons are no match for the Itanium2s.
__________________

__________________
A Knight is sworn to Honour. His heart knows only Virtue. His blade defends the helpless. His might upholds the Weak. His word speaks only truth. His wrath undoes the Wicked.
Lord Kalthorn is offline  
Old 01-15-2005, 06:15 PM   #42
entity512
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: FX-55 or P4

Your last point there..

Opterons..

Well they are a match, but so far they are not competing with Itanium "2's" but Xeons. Itaniums arnt even in the same 3figures of an opteron, so there is no way you can compair this partnerized crap with an opteron.
 
Old 01-15-2005, 07:24 PM   #43
BSOD
 
Giancarlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,788
Send a message via AIM to Giancarlo
Default Re: FX-55 or P4

LK doesn't know shit about AMD or market capitalism.. that's all I will say...

"The same Bad Architecture AMD is slamming together into a vague market oppertunity for the AMD64? Marketting stratagy I cannot discuss - I am not an Open-Market person and will never be; but the AMD64s are merely boshed up Intel Processors, the same sort of boshing done to the EMTs except earlier. Microsoft missed the start of the Internet - Microsoft is on over 80% of all Browsers used. Being the first; is rarely being the worst. It will give Intel a chance to do what Intel have always done - innovate regardless of the market and continue to bring out top of the line Processors for those who have the taste to buy them."

WTF was he talking about here? Nothing apparently.
Giancarlo is offline  
Old 01-15-2005, 07:28 PM   #44
BSOD
 
Giancarlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,788
Send a message via AIM to Giancarlo
Default Re: FX-55 or P4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Kalthorn
Haha; they can do it; but wherever Honourable Overclocking may be in your anatomy it is the same thing - Intel users have got more power out of their Intels through Overclocking and any AMD overclocker can dream of.
This is utter bullshit. YOu need to learn the facts before you speak. Intel is garbage. The best thing intel users can do is dump their crap in the garbage can.

Quote:
market Strategy is Evil anyway. Market strategy is propaganda; and I would have thought you as an Anti-Fascist would be against such things?
YOu're a moron for making these anti-american, anti-western statements. Go join al qaeda. you're a fool.

Quote:
The will be a great year for Intel is not the point of the point - the point was that it refered to the release of the Dual Processor Cores in 2005. They would have to be a good deal behind; which they won't, to not release this year. I suppose we shall see though...
No, got it won't again wrong. Idiot.

Quote:
I don't know L1 Cache specifications, and although it is more important technically - it is not. The L1 Cache in an AMD is below par, the L1 Cache in an Intel is on track. 28kb for a 32-Bit Processor is reasonable; the numbers are not that long and the processor is not going to keep much in the L1 Cache. The 128kb or so in an AMD as AMD Zen said; is not enough for a 64-bit Processor and it will be realised when the programs come out if they stick to that sort of Cache. We both know conversion tables for 32-bit to 64-bit, and while the L1 growth cannot equal the Bits growth - its got to be more than 5 times, if not 10 or 20 times, to make up.
Again you don't know what you are talking about. As AMD is better. L1 cache in an intel is shit. It is below and crap. 32-bit sucks. And you suck. You don't know what you are talking about.

Quote:
Touchet; Touchet. Intel Market share losses are based soley on the AMD64; not because of better processors particularly - before 64s AMD were not making a good deal of progress. But because people want 64-bit Processors; even myself. When Intel get in, they will get in hard with a theoretically Quad-Core Processor with at last the Software to back it at 64-bits and at 60nm. With superior L2 Cache and hopefully a better rounded approach to L1 Cache, they will gain whatever Market Share they lost.
NO they aren't. The massive moron speaks wrongly again. Intel market share losses date back to the XP series. Again you are wrong and dumb. You just don't know what you are talking about. AMD 64s are making huge progress, and Intel will not be able to recover. again you should recover from your stupidities and delusions.
Giancarlo is offline  
Old 01-15-2005, 07:41 PM   #45
Daemon Poster
 
The_Necromancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,209
Send a message via MSN to The_Necromancer
Default

tell me I am an AMD user, but you said "stop w/ those un-american statements" tell me just b/c we liberalshave differing opinion's does that mean we are un-patriotic, freedom of speach is about the most american thing you can do. Our country was founded on speaking your mind-and overthroughing an evil empire, now if you ask me the evil empire is the bush adminatration, they have single handedly screwed our armed forces over, they have reeked havik on our economy and ecosystems, and have pushed use into a

$7,612,324,157,790.40 debt.
__________________
For You
The_Necromancer is offline  
Old 01-15-2005, 07:51 PM   #46
Golden Master
 
ISOwner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 12,208
Default Re: FX-55 or P4

Holy crap. Seven trillion dollars + and some 40 cents. That's funny. Why even have that 40 cents in there? Funny.
__________________
*Fact: Microsoft Window's Blue Screen of Death vs Computerforums.org's White Screen of Death. Which is worse?
ISOwner is offline  
Old 01-15-2005, 08:20 PM   #47
Daemon Poster
 
kyleman999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 538
Send a message via AIM to kyleman999 Send a message via MSN to kyleman999
Default Re: FX-55 or P4

Intel is just way to expensive is you compare it to AMD
AMD in the past wasnt so popular untill the Athlon XPs came out and then the 64 just blew Intel away
__________________
AMD Athlon XP 2600+ Barton (running @ 2.21)--Asus A7N8X --1gb (2x512) DDR PC3200 --200gb WD 8mb cache 7200 RPM--40gb WD 2mb cache 5200 RPM --XFX GeForce 6600GT AGP 8x @ 588\1.14 --Creative Audigy2 7.1 ZS--CoolMax 400 wat PSU-- --Volcano 12+ CPU Fan--Overclocking Kit--Logitech Z-5300e's
kyleman999 is offline  
Old 01-15-2005, 08:24 PM   #48
Daemon Poster
 
The_Necromancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,209
Send a message via MSN to The_Necromancer
Default

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

lol
__________________
For You
The_Necromancer is offline  
Old 01-15-2005, 08:26 PM   #49
Daemon Poster
 
The_Necromancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,209
Send a message via MSN to The_Necromancer
Default

IT's up 700,000 now
__________________
For You
The_Necromancer is offline  
Old 01-15-2005, 09:36 PM   #50
BSOD
 
DarkBlade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 3,355
Send a message via MSN to DarkBlade
Default Re: FX-55 or P4

HAHAH! Yes, the debt is high, but back to AMD vs Intel. LK, I respect you, but pls, 60nm??? Right..... BTW, the SOI technology has kept the power leakage and heat levels down when AMD made the move to 90nm technology. Intel however, with their Copper interconnects, got a massive power leak in their new cores, and they are frying pans as far as heat goes... Intel is crap in engineering department... Itanium2's are decent processors, no doubt there. However... Opterons make them look like pansy CPUs.... they run at 1.6ghz maximum, and they have only 256KB L2 Cache... Not 8MBs..... WTF are you talking about... They have a 9MB (L3) cache... Umm, wow, not impressive... That L3 cache of theirs takes forever to access for the processor when compared to the L2 and the L1 is the MOST important, since it runs the Floating Point Coprocessor (which runs ALL the mathematical computations). AMD64s have a 512KB (L2) Cache... And the 4000+ (FX-53) and FX55 have a 1MB (L2) Cache, not some dumb L3 cache... Also, the 128KB L1 is far better then the Itaniums mighty 32kb!!!! L1 Cache... Yeah, right! Wow, and Server Opterons beat Itaniums in Wattage performance (55 watts only....) Itanium=Crap Compared to Opteron!
Here is link about Opterons to prove my point!

Opteron Data:
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/...6_8804,00.html

Itanium Data:
http://www.intel.com/products/server...ium2/index.htm

DARE TO COMPARE!!!
__________________

DarkBlade is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0