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 |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:59 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HardwareBanter.com