Bye bye AMD

(Courseyauto) wrote:

I am sure they are. It is not totally hogwash. 64-bit
IS an advance. Yes, one cannot yet take advantage
of it but saying it is not an advantage is like saying
the first 32-bit Intel chip didn't have an advantage
over the 16-bit Intel chip it supplanted because 32-bit
software was not available yet.


64 bit processing is not new Intel has had it for a while,with OS for it.
It is nit cheap but the AMD is ny no means a bargin..........

And Alpha systems had it before Intel. And IBM's
G5 was being used by Apple for a desktop before
the Athlon 64 3200+ and FX-51 release. So what?

The Itanium was expensive and runs 32-bit software
poorly. The Apple (IBM) proc. is incompatible as
was the Alpha. The AMD64 chips (Opteron, FX-51,
and Athlon 64 3200+) are the only runs that can
run x86 32-bit software faster than anything out
there. Reference http://www.aceshardware.com/
for benchmarks.

Intel, Intel, Intel. Give me a break. Intel did not
invent the wheel. Sheesh!

and you ran it with Win32 apps as did I.


"mike" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 23:13:24 GMT, "fish" wrote:

and at the time that was totally true too.



"Courseyauto" wrote in message
...

I am sure they are. It is not totally hogwash. 64-bit
IS an advance. Yes, one cannot yet take advantage
of it but saying it is not an advantage is like saying
the first 32-bit Intel chip didn't have an advantage
over the 16-bit Intel chip it supplanted because 32-bit
software was not available yet.


64 bit processing is not new Intel has had it for a while,with OS for
it.
It is nit cheap but the AMD is ny no means a bargin..........



No, it wasn't true at the time. I remember when the first 386-16
computers came out. Deathly expensive but blazingly fast, much faster
than an equivalent spec 286-16 or even a 286-20. The only real
difference of course was the 386 was 32-bit and the 286 was 16 bit.

Didn't matter, even in DOS with old pre 32 bit apps it was faster.

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 01:42:07 GMT, "fish" wrote:

and you ran it with Win32 apps as did I.


"mike" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 23:13:24 GMT, "fish" wrote:

and at the time that was totally true too.



"Courseyauto" wrote in message
...

I am sure they are. It is not totally hogwash. 64-bit
IS an advance. Yes, one cannot yet take advantage
of it but saying it is not an advantage is like saying
the first 32-bit Intel chip didn't have an advantage
over the 16-bit Intel chip it supplanted because 32-bit
software was not available yet.


64 bit processing is not new Intel has had it for a while,with OS for
it.
It is nit cheap but the AMD is ny no means a bargin..........



No, it wasn't true at the time. I remember when the first 386-16
computers came out. Deathly expensive but blazingly fast, much faster
than an equivalent spec 286-16 or even a 286-20. The only real
difference of course was the 386 was 32-bit and the 286 was 16 bit.

Supertime wrote:
And Alpha systems had it before Intel. And IBM's
G5 was being used by Apple for a desktop before
the Athlon 64 3200+ and FX-51 release. So what?


Exactly my point,AMD has a 64 bit CPU
SO WHAT..................................

On 28 Sep 2003 12:18:10 GMT, (Courseyauto) wrote:

Supertime wrote:
And Alpha systems had it before Intel. And IBM's
G5 was being used by Apple for a desktop before
the Athlon 64 3200+ and FX-51 release. So what?


Exactly my point,AMD has a 64 bit CPU
SO WHAT..................................


I love this, you sound like the "nobody will ever need more than 640k
of ram" or the people fussing about the need for a 32-bit 386-16 when
the 16-bit 286-12 did just fine....

On 27 Sep 2003 19:13:34 GMT, (Supertimer) wrote:

(Courseyauto) wrote:

I dont understand AMD's reason for the 64 but there sure wont be many
sold,kind of a pointless exercise.

Turned on the TV last night. Saw TigerDirect selling
an Athlon 64 3200+ system for $1600. The price
includes a 17-inch monitor, a multifunction printer
(photo printer, copier, scanner, fax), a 56k modem
on a motherboard that has built in Networking,
Firewire, USB 2.0, and multi-channel sound, flash
drive, 160GB hard drive, also including a 5.1 speaker
system (Creative, I think), Radeon graphics, a
designer Systemax case neon lit with see through
panel, and a nice software bundle of 50 programs.

Sounds like a reasonable price to me for nForce3
based Athlon 64 system with accessories. Less
than a typical P4 3.2 system from Alienware, for
example, or Dell.

Hardly pointless for a CPU that, even if you don't
take into account that it beats the P4 3.2 in so
many benchmarks, is faster than AMD's former
flagship XP 3200+ across the board and sells in
systems that cost no more than a similar XP
3200+ system.

Ahh, but it must be pointless - if you're an Intel fanboy (I hate that
term but what else applies?) If only we could get pricing like that
in the UK ! (Now I'll go read some online suppliers pages and find we
can

Gary

--------------------------------------------------
Reply to gary at data dot mildenhall dot com
--------------------------------------------------

Supertime wrote:
And Alpha systems had it before Intel. And IBM's
G5 was being used by Apple for a desktop before
the Athlon 64 3200+ and FX-51 release. So what?


Exactly my point,AMD has a 64 bit CPU
SO WHAT..................................


I love this, you sound like the "nobody will ever need more than 640k
of ram" or the people fussing about the need for a 32-bit 386-16 when
the 16-bit 286-12 did just fine....



You miss the whole point. It's not as big a deal that AMD is making
it out to be. How many people need more than 1 gig of ram,not
many. Sure it's great,but not new. It's stupid
expensive especially,especially for AMD people who dont even want to spend more
the $50 for a cpu,much less $400 or $700.
It's not good for home users it's only marginally faster on some things but
overall it.s not a big improvment,and even business apps will be limited for a
while.
All AMD is trying to do is grab a little limelight with something they
didn't even develop. Mac's been using it for while so it's no big whooping
development. Intel has had it for while for business and
server systems so what's the big deal,i dont see it. Sure it's is an
improvement over what AMD has now but who's going to buy right now,even for
gamers it's it's way too overpriced. Theres not much bang for the buck with
this Processor,it's going to have to drop a lot in price before these tightwad
AMD supporters buy it.

Hardly pointless for a CPU that, even if you don't
take into account that it beats the P4 3.2 in so
many benchmarks, is faster than AMD's former
flagship XP 3200+ across the board and sells in
systems that cost no more than a similar XP
3200+ system.

Ahh, but it must be pointless - if you're an Intel fanboy (I hate that
term but what else applies?) If only we could get pricing like that
in the UK ! (Now I'll go read some online suppliers pages and find we
can

Gary



I own both amd and Intel. Nice product for 1% of the amd market,how many
people are going to jump and but one.
Great for servers and business apps, but home user's, no market
unless they drop the price to $100 so they can have their bank for buck as they
call it.

On 28 Sep 2003 17:42:49 GMT, (Courseyauto) wrote:


Supertime wrote:
And Alpha systems had it before Intel. And IBM's
G5 was being used by Apple for a desktop before
the Athlon 64 3200+ and FX-51 release. So what?


Exactly my point,AMD has a 64 bit CPU
SO WHAT..................................


I love this, you sound like the "nobody will ever need more than 640k
of ram" or the people fussing about the need for a 32-bit 386-16 when
the 16-bit 286-12 did just fine....



You miss the whole point. It's not as big a deal that AMD is making
it out to be. How many people need more than 1 gig of ram,not
many. Sure it's great,but not new. It's stupid
expensive especially,especially for AMD people who dont even want to spend more
the $50 for a cpu,much less $400 or $700.
It's not good for home users it's only marginally faster on some things but
overall it.s not a big improvment,and even business apps will be limited for a
while.
All AMD is trying to do is grab a little limelight with something they
didn't even develop. Mac's been using it for while so it's no big whooping
development. Intel has had it for while for business and
server systems so what's the big deal,i dont see it. Sure it's is an
improvement over what AMD has now but who's going to buy right now,even for
gamers it's it's way too overpriced. Theres not much bang for the buck with
this Processor,it's going to have to drop a lot in price before these tightwad
AMD supporters buy it.

It must be something since an Intel fanboy is hanging out whining
about it in an AMD newsgroup... oh and you're wrong anyway.

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 06:45:08 GMT, "Toby Groves"
wrote:

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.

Er... THG compared the 3.2 paper launched P4-EE to actual shipping AMD
64bit CPUs.

The 3.6GHz CPUs won't be out utill some time in 2004... maybe March,
April... oh, yeah - AMD will have faster versions of their CPU as
well, and Windows64 should be available too.


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!