Lord Kalthorn
Guru
- Messages
- 13,293
- Location
- Britain
The love is our Love of the Divine.
I have to agree with that I know this from my experiences during College. What is interesting though; once he who is always used to winning realises he can't without doing something and pulls his socks up - beating that who has through his life strived constantly is not hard. Intel is only not so good now because of that. That is the beauty of competition; Intel could quite easily have just dropped to B, and AMD finally got A - it by no means means that Intel is going to loose, it just means they need to pull an A* out of the bag. It can happenSSE4 said:Well if there weren't those who followed AMD in the times of darkness, there wouldn't be an AMD today. AMD was not always the best. And neither is Intel right now. People don't seem to understand that the AMD today was built on a series of failures and shortcomings. Someone who strives for more, like AMD, is going to catch up. Someone who is used to winning all the time, like Intel (Or Nintendo and it's Gameboy) is just going to sit around assuming it can win by default.
HT is good and all, and EM64T fills in for the lack of 64-bitting but you're probably right. The Prescott and Gallatin and so on just aren't AMD64-Level Processors, and still they beat it which should be amazing. Microsoft was in a similar position with the Internet at one point Caught with its trousers down as it were, I think we know where that went.SSE4 said:And needforspeed, I had seen that benchmark too. I don't really feel that the NetBurst architecture can openly compete. Like I've said before, the P4 competed with the XP. Intel failed to come up with a new chip to properly contend with the AMD64, and fell massively behind. The AMD64 is newer and more efficient. There are a lot of benchmarks out there that aren't biased, and to be honest when I see losses by the Pentium 4, I just think about the architecture and the processor itself. It simply isn't good enough.
Giancarlo said:But it boils down to what is the better buy, and in every case AMD is the better more affordable buy. Why pay more for less or about the same? I don't get it. It is like Abercrombie and Old Navy. Hahah. And yes i have heard AMD is branching out to computer manufacturers now too..
zoomtm said:hp/compaq are like the only ones that are starting not to use intel and goto amd64 and pci-express.
Gallatin is the Core used in the 3.43 Extreme. Its the only reason the 3.43 gets so high compared to the Prescott; its a damn fine desktop core whether originally a Server one or not.needforspeed said:"The Prescott and Gallatin and so on just aren't AMD64-Level Processors, and still they beat it which should be amazing."
Lord Kalthorn, stop talking out of your ass. The Gallatin core is a server core, which means it is not that suitable for desktops, and the Prescott core was the worst thing which ever happen to Intel. If I was going to buy an Intel, I'd buy a Northwood. No question about it.
That doesn't bother me I carry around all my school books on the 2 mile walk and 40 mile train journey to College just so I don't have to pack in the morning. I'm a lazy bastard. Desktop chips are becomming more and more like Mobile Chips; in the end I imagine they'll both have the same Chips. But for now - Desktop Chips are cheaper, and faster.needforspeed said:On the subject of mobile processors, if your gonna buy a laptop with a desktop processor in it, you have to have one hell of a big laptop bag, and it would need enough power to supply a damn fishing village. Also, it will way a ton. That's where mobile processors come in, as they use less power, are lighter, are quieter (come on, do you really want a laptop which sounds like a whirlwind) and most of all, as technology progresses, are getting better are more like desktop chips.
Nothing wrong with a stopgap - recouperation is of great use when planning the death of your opponent following an unexpected yealding of land.needforspeed said:SSE4, your completely right. Intel have approached the 6-series wrong, as they have kept the NetBurst architecture and also the Prescott core. The 6-series should have been built to compete with the AMD 64s, but instead it just looks like a stop-gap until the dual-cores come out.
We don't really know that... AMD are noticably getting contracts because they had none originally - Intel aren't because they don't need anymore, nobody who hasn't wanted them in the past is going to want them now. Intel are always advertising - every computer company who sells Intels advertises for Intel, and then there are the Centrino Adverts and CNet is full of Intel Adverts, same with MSN. We can't be sure whether Intel are researching and making better processors though... we will have to wait.needforspeed said:"Someone who strives for more, like AMD, is going to catch up. Someone who is used to winning all the time, like Intel (Or Nintendo and it's Gameboy) is just going to sit around assuming it can win by default."
That is the best sentence summing up Intel and AMD I have heard in a long time. AMD are now advertising, getting contracts, making better processors, and researching. Intel are just researching. That's it. I could imagine being in two rooms, one with AMD and one with Intel. In the AMD room, they would be furiously planning, but chatting and laughing at the same time. In the Intel room, everyone would be sitting in corner's staring out the windows, or watching TV. And if Intel don't buck up their ideas, AMD are easily going to over take them, just because AMD seem to care more about what they do.
Haha, I'm ready to admit them to myself - I'm not going to admit those faults to anybody elseneedforspeed said:I'm gonna say this again, but SSE4 has some of the most balanced arguments in this forum. True, he's an Intel supporter, but unlike Lord Kalthorn he really knows what he's talking about and he also is ready to admit that in some places Intel have gone wrong.