Bye bye AMD
 

Well having read the reviews of the Athlon 64 & FX today, I have to say
I think AMD are toast :(

From a performance perspective, the P4EE beats the A64 in most
benchmarks in 32-bit at least, and as 64-bit is total pie-in-the-sky at
present, this is really all that matters.

The A64 is going to be expensive too, as it's costly for AMD to produce.
In this situation, I can't really see why the guy in the street is going
to go for AMD over Intel.

If, and it's a big if, 64-bit turns out to be a winner, then it would
now appear that Intel have hedged their bets and built the Yamhill
extensions into the P4. They obviously don't want to advertise this to
the world, as it will practically kill off the Itanium, but it's there
if they need it.

So basically, AMD's latest and greatest processor fails to even beat the
latest iteration of Intel's old P4, never mind Prescott. Intel will
produce Prescott on a 90nm process using 300mm wafers, whilst AMD are
stuck with 130nm on 200mm wafers and a bloody huge 192mm2 die, meaning
their costs are stratospheric by comparison. AMD don't anticipate
moving to 90nm until the middle of 2004. Not only will this keep the
cost of the Hammer series high, but I suspect it may prevent them from
ramping the speed up much either. By mid-2004, Prescott will be up to
the 4Ghz range, leaving A64 and AFX well behind.

I've been a fan of AMD for a while now, but I'm forced to admit that if
I were buying or upgrading now, I'd be spending money on Intel kit.
--
Toby

you'll notice the A64 running at between 1.6-2.2Ghz the Althon64 ramp up
much better than the current crop and will get faster quicker than their K7
ancestors...
It's going to be a good processor ( i really like the new retention
mechanism) the problem is... as much as I like one I wont buy one... I'll
be upgrading before christmas... and then probably a year after that...
which means Ill be buying the best for buck system then and there...it'll be
an XP3000 most likely (just like the 2600+ now) with the A64 system end of
next year.... a full year after AMD would have liked me to.



"Toby Groves" wrote in message
...
Well having read the reviews of the Athlon 64 & FX today, I have to say
I think AMD are toast :(

From a performance perspective, the P4EE beats the A64 in most
benchmarks in 32-bit at least, and as 64-bit is total pie-in-the-sky at
present, this is really all that matters.

The A64 is going to be expensive too, as it's costly for AMD to produce.
In this situation, I can't really see why the guy in the street is going
to go for AMD over Intel.

If, and it's a big if, 64-bit turns out to be a winner, then it would
now appear that Intel have hedged their bets and built the Yamhill
extensions into the P4. They obviously don't want to advertise this to
the world, as it will practically kill off the Itanium, but it's there
if they need it.

So basically, AMD's latest and greatest processor fails to even beat the
latest iteration of Intel's old P4, never mind Prescott. Intel will
produce Prescott on a 90nm process using 300mm wafers, whilst AMD are
stuck with 130nm on 200mm wafers and a bloody huge 192mm2 die, meaning
their costs are stratospheric by comparison. AMD don't anticipate
moving to 90nm until the middle of 2004. Not only will this keep the
cost of the Hammer series high, but I suspect it may prevent them from
ramping the speed up much either. By mid-2004, Prescott will be up to
the 4Ghz range, leaving A64 and AFX well behind.

I've been a fan of AMD for a while now, but I'm forced to admit that if
I were buying or upgrading now, I'd be spending money on Intel kit.
--
Toby

Your Ranting. Dont believe the hype. As far as upgrading you will waste your
money if you want the latest. I upgraded from a 386-40 (amd) to a pentium
pro(intel) to amd socket A, try waiting a couple of months,years or some
givin reason to move to a new socket before wasting on new tech.
Lets not turn the current battle lines of nvidia + ati to the second front
with amd and intel. both are putting out some great tech now, least you
forget the first pentium4's they were crap, different socket. And the k6
series i just didnt like. Ibelieve there are just different uses for the
different cpus, I favor Intel for video encode+decode and for a quite
pc(also use a dual socket 8 for daw), but for raw computing speed i favor
the amd.

"Toby Groves" wrote in message
...
Well having read the reviews of the Athlon 64 & FX today, I have to say
I think AMD are toast :(

From a performance perspective, the P4EE beats the A64 in most
benchmarks in 32-bit at least, and as 64-bit is total pie-in-the-sky at
present, this is really all that matters.

The A64 is going to be expensive too, as it's costly for AMD to produce.
In this situation, I can't really see why the guy in the street is going
to go for AMD over Intel.

If, and it's a big if, 64-bit turns out to be a winner, then it would
now appear that Intel have hedged their bets and built the Yamhill
extensions into the P4. They obviously don't want to advertise this to
the world, as it will practically kill off the Itanium, but it's there
if they need it.

So basically, AMD's latest and greatest processor fails to even beat the
latest iteration of Intel's old P4, never mind Prescott. Intel will
produce Prescott on a 90nm process using 300mm wafers, whilst AMD are
stuck with 130nm on 200mm wafers and a bloody huge 192mm2 die, meaning
their costs are stratospheric by comparison. AMD don't anticipate
moving to 90nm until the middle of 2004. Not only will this keep the
cost of the Hammer series high, but I suspect it may prevent them from
ramping the speed up much either. By mid-2004, Prescott will be up to
the 4Ghz range, leaving A64 and AFX well behind.

I've been a fan of AMD for a while now, but I'm forced to admit that if
I were buying or upgrading now, I'd be spending money on Intel kit.
--
Toby

"Toby Groves" wrote in message
...
Well having read the reviews of the Athlon 64 & FX today, I have to say
I think AMD are toast :(

From a performance perspective, the P4EE beats the A64 in most
benchmarks in 32-bit at least, and as 64-bit is total pie-in-the-sky at
present, this is really all that matters.

The A64 is going to be expensive too, as it's costly for AMD to produce.
In this situation, I can't really see why the guy in the street is going
to go for AMD over Intel.

If, and it's a big if, 64-bit turns out to be a winner, then it would
now appear that Intel have hedged their bets and built the Yamhill
extensions into the P4. They obviously don't want to advertise this to
the world, as it will practically kill off the Itanium, but it's there
if they need it.

So basically, AMD's latest and greatest processor fails to even beat the
latest iteration of Intel's old P4, never mind Prescott. Intel will
produce Prescott on a 90nm process using 300mm wafers, whilst AMD are
stuck with 130nm on 200mm wafers and a bloody huge 192mm2 die, meaning
their costs are stratospheric by comparison. AMD don't anticipate
moving to 90nm until the middle of 2004. Not only will this keep the
cost of the Hammer series high, but I suspect it may prevent them from
ramping the speed up much either. By mid-2004, Prescott will be up to
the 4Ghz range, leaving A64 and AFX well behind.

I've been a fan of AMD for a while now, but I'm forced to admit that if
I were buying or upgrading now, I'd be spending money on Intel kit.
--
Toby

What are you talking about "...the P4EE beats the A64 in most
benchmarks..."? I just got done reading this report at techreport.com and
then I come read this and wonder where do you get your information?
http://techreport.com/reviews/2003q3...4/index.x?pg=1
I don't see why AMD needs to ramp up speed when their 2.2GHz part beats
Intel's 3.2GHz "Extreme" part in many marks already. Other benchmark links
are available he
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11721
Sorry for feeding the troll, guys, I couldn't let it go...

"Ed" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 22:15:07 GMT, "Toby Groves"

wrote:

I've been a fan of AMD for a while now, but I'm forced to
admit that if
I were buying or upgrading now, I'd be spending money on Intel
kit.

I wouldn't, I'd buy a Nf2 mobo, Barton 2500+ and some low
latency DDR
400 and OC the crap out of it. ;p

Ed


I'm with you on this. Rather happy with my little $500 rig and I
may build another soon.




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 22:15:07 GMT, "Toby Groves"
wrote:

Well having read the reviews of the Athlon 64 & FX today, I have to say
I think AMD are toast :(

From a performance perspective, the P4EE beats the A64 in most
benchmarks in 32-bit at least, and as 64-bit is total pie-in-the-sky at
present, this is really all that matters.

The A64 is going to be expensive too, as it's costly for AMD to produce.
In this situation, I can't really see why the guy in the street is going
to go for AMD over Intel.

If, and it's a big if, 64-bit turns out to be a winner, then it would
now appear that Intel have hedged their bets and built the Yamhill
extensions into the P4. They obviously don't want to advertise this to
the world, as it will practically kill off the Itanium, but it's there
if they need it.

So basically, AMD's latest and greatest processor fails to even beat the
latest iteration of Intel's old P4, never mind Prescott. Intel will
produce Prescott on a 90nm process using 300mm wafers, whilst AMD are
stuck with 130nm on 200mm wafers and a bloody huge 192mm2 die, meaning
their costs are stratospheric by comparison. AMD don't anticipate
moving to 90nm until the middle of 2004. Not only will this keep the
cost of the Hammer series high, but I suspect it may prevent them from
ramping the speed up much either. By mid-2004, Prescott will be up to
the 4Ghz range, leaving A64 and AFX well behind.

I've been a fan of AMD for a while now, but I'm forced to admit that if
I were buying or upgrading now, I'd be spending money on Intel kit.

P4EE isn't out yet and will be a niche part (like FX.). Prescott is
also months away, but is looking like it will be a very effective
space heater. And I don't know what benchmarks you are looking at, if
it's the ones with the NForce3 chipset, they seem to have some kind of
performance problem compared to the Via ones. Also, at least on Tom's
site the many of the benchmarks show a P4EE at 3.4 and 3.6 ghz,
(apparently overclocked as it's announced as a 3.2 gig part) while
running the Athlon FX at standard clockspeed.

"Toby Groves" wrote:

Well having read the reviews of the Athlon 64 & FX today, I have to say
I think AMD are toast :(

From a performance perspective, the P4EE beats the A64 in most
benchmarks in 32-bit at least, and as 64-bit is total pie-in-the-sky at
present, this is really all that matters.
[snip]
So basically, AMD's latest and greatest processor fails to even beat the
latest iteration of Intel's old P4, never mind Prescott.

What the hell, which benchmarks are you referring to?

I just read several different sites and the ONLY one that
puts the P4EE ahead of the Athlon 64FX-51 is, what
a surprise, Tom's Hardware. That must be the review
you are referring to. The reason I was not surprised is
that, for some reason, Tom's Hardware out of all the
review site seems biased against AMD. I am not just
talking about the reviews but the editorials.

To see more balanced reviews, take at:

Aces Hardware (http://www.aceshardware.com/)
Anandtech (http://www.anandtech.com/)
HardOCP (http://www.hardocp.com/)
AMDZone (http://www.amdzone.com/)

Pretty much all show AMD delivering a 1-2-punch.
The Athlon 64 dispatching the P4 3.2 with HT and
the Athlon 64 FX-51 defeating the P4EE.

As was discussed in the other thread, the
Opteron has been shown to outperform the P4
after the 2.0Ghz model was released. The FX-51
is essentially a rebadged Opteron that supports
DDR400. Note: I would not call this cheating,
after all what is a P4EE but a Xeon.

The Athlon 64 FX-51 is now the highest
performing desktop x86 CPU you can buy.
Clocking in at 2.2Ghz, it even outshines the
2.0Ghz Opteron 1uP. Way to go AMD! ;-)

In article , James
Paraskeva writes
you'll notice the A64 running at between 1.6-2.2Ghz the Althon64 ramp up
much better than the current crop and will get faster quicker than their K7
ancestors...

I don't see why. It's produced on the same 130nm process as the T-Bred,
and they haven't got that much above 2.2Ghz yet. Granted some of us
have got them up to 2.4Ghz, but that's a far cry from AMD producing
large quantities that will do that speed at sensible voltages.
--
Toby

In article E15cb.564043$uu5.92218@sccrnsc04, KCB kcbairdREMOVE@THISco
mcast.net writes
What are you talking about "...the P4EE beats the A64 in most
benchmarks..."? I just got done reading this report at techreport.com and
then I come read this and wonder where do you get your information?

Take a look at THG. They ran more benchmarks than I've ever seen, and
the P4EE won most of them, at least in it's 3.6Ghz incarnation. I
notice the site you mention only used the 3.2Ghz variant.
--
Toby

In article , Ed
writes
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 22:15:07 GMT, "Toby Groves"
wrote:

I've been a fan of AMD for a while now, but I'm forced to admit that if
I were buying or upgrading now, I'd be spending money on Intel kit.

I wouldn't, I'd buy a Nf2 mobo, Barton 2500+ and some low latency DDR
400 and OC the crap out of it. ;p

Which is exactly what I've done :)

XP2500 @ 205x11=2255Mhz (stock voltage)
1GB Corsair TwinX XMS3200LL
--
Toby