Please register or login. There are 0 registered and 1174 anonymous users currently online. Current bandwidth usage: 326.30 kbit/s December 12 - 06:22pm EST 
Hardware Analysis
      
Forums Product Prices
  Contents 
 
 

  Latest Topics 
 

More >>
 

    
 
 

  You Are Here: 
 
/ Forums / The road to dual core, Intel hits the gas
 

  Re: The road to dual core, Intel hits the gas 
 
 Author 
 Date Written 
 Tools 
Dean Noneya Apr 22, 2005, 10:21am EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List Replies: 8 - Views: 2063
To: Dan Mepham

This has got to be the most "Intel Fanboy-ish" article I have read in a long while. I'm not trying to take sides (AMD vs. Intel) here but when you make it so blatantly obvious how much of a fanboy you are it makes it hard to take you seriously.

Like I said, "I try not to take sides" but I would like to remind you of other "obvious" facts... Like...

Who was first out the door with a 32/64bit CPU?
Who was the first to implement an on-die memory controller?
Who was first to announce plans for a dual core (and then demoed it first)?
Who saw the future of dual core first and designed their CPU with dual (or multi) core in mind?
Who will have a dual core server, workstation and desktop CPU on the market first?
And lets not forget...
Who has the best performing (over all or on average) CPU on the market?

Intel doesn't come to mind when I ask myself the above questions.

It seems to me that Intel has been doing a lot more "catching up" and not doing much "driving in the drivers seat" lately.

Or at least that's just my opinion.


Want to enjoy fewer advertisements and more features? Click here to become a Hardware Analysis registered user.
A_Pickle Apr 25, 2005, 03:45am EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List

Edited: Apr 25, 2005, 03:58am EDT

 
>> Re: Re: The road to dual core, Intel hits the gas
No, it's not. And your questions are a bit skewed and don't help your arguement much.

"...Who was first out the door with a 32/64bit CPU?"

That, sir, was NOT AMD, but everyone's favorite, Apple Computers Incorporated upon the release of the PowerPC G5 central processing unit.

"...Who was first to announce plans for a dual core (and then demoed it first)?"

IBM, in 2001.

(Source: http://www.hoise.com/primeur/99/articles/monthly/AE-PR-09-99-60.html)

"...Who saw the future of dual core first and designed their CPU with dual (or multi) core in mind?"

And then failed to act on it before intel? AMD. But really, it was IBM the whole time.

"..Who will have a dual core server, workstation and desktop CPU on the market first?"

Intel. Considering they actually HAVE the 840 out and being sold. Not to mention, you don't quite remember the Itanium 2 processors that intel released with dual-cores. Those have 1-8MB of cache.

(Source: http://www.intel.com/products/processor/itanium2/index.htm)

"...Who has the best performing (over all or on average) CPU on the market?"

That's opinion based, but there's a number of benchmarks out there telling you, in the face, that AMD's are better for gaming. They each have their strong points. Pentiums tend to excel at pro software, whilst AMD's tend to excel in gaming and, some 3D animation software. The Pentiums tend to excel at most professional apps, are the trusted core of scientific applications, and do not by any means "suck" at gaming. Unless you can see a difference of 10 fps.

"...It seems to me that Intel has been doing a lot more "catching up" and not doing much "driving in the drivers seat" lately."

Of course not. Nope. Hell, they're the bigger corporation! Let's bash on them! They're a multibillion dollar global operation! They can't know what they're doing!

And after all, I see AMD's in PDA's all over the world. I also see AMD making chipsets. Oh, yeah, and I also see AMD dual core processors for sale right now.

...thanks, and don't go accusing someone of being an intel "fanboy" when you yourself demonstrate the core manifestations of being the equivalent for AMD.

Dean Noneya Apr 25, 2005, 09:35am EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: The road to dual core, Intel hits the gas
On almost all of my points I was referring "solely" to "AMD vs. Intel" and I was not referring to Apple or IBM.

In other words I should have wrote it like this...
~~~~~
Who was first out the door with a 32/64bit CPU?
A) AMD
B) Intel
~~~~~

I guess I should have made myself more clear on that but I didn't think multiple choice would be that hard to comprehend.

But while we're on the subject of the "Who was" points I made, did you even notice that not even you could answer "Intel" to any of them except what you said about dual core?

Intel IS NOT the first out the door with dual core "everything". Where is the dual core Xeon's? Did I hear 2006? AMD is planning to have everything out the door by June. As for the Itanium... what's the Itanium? Who's ever heard of the Itanium? Who even uses the Itanium? (I'm being facetious) I'm talking about real world processors here... Not some back room, no money making, nobodies ever heard of failure processor.

So lets take a look at some of the "fantastic" and "ground breaking" innovations Intel has had in the past few years...

Lets see...

Hmmm... I really need to think on this one...

Well there's the Pentium M... That's actually a great CPU but wait... All it really is, is a rehashed Pentium III with a the quad pumped "NetBurst" FSB tacked on to it so that's not anything really "ground breaking".

Then there's "Centrino"... Now that's brilliant... in marketing that is but nothing ground breaking in technology.

Then there's "NetBurst" itself, Intel was the first (and only) to use a "quad pumped" FSB... But so what, AMD was doing "double pumped" way before Intel was doing NetBurst and besides, Hyper Transport smokes 'em both any way.

Well then there's RDRAM... oh wait, that wasn't ground breaking, that was a failure.

But now they're trying DDR2... but wait, that looks like another failure around the corner... I don't see AMD, IBM or Apple "running" as fast as they can to catchup to Intel's adoption of DDR2. Probably because DDR2's performance sux.

They did come up with SSE, SEE2 and SSE3... well I'll give 'em that.

Anyway, this list could go on for a while but my point is, what has Intel done in the last few years that was really "ground breaking" and "extremely innovative"? Not much in my eyes. So who's leading and who's following? AMD releases the Opteron and Athlon 64... Intel rushes EMT64 out the door. AMD builds their Opteron and Athlon 64 with multi core in mind so Intel "patches" two Pentium 4's together, calls it "dual core" and rushes in out the door. To bad you will need to buy a whole new motherboard to run it on... Opteron's and Athlon 64's only need a BIOS update. Where's Intel's onboard memory controller? Where's Intel's Hyper Transport? Like I said... who's leading and who's following?

And lets not get into the recalls... when was the last time AMD had a recall?

I could go on for a while but to tell you the truth, I don't have the time for this. But let me tell you one thing, before you call me an "AMD Fanboy" consider the fact that I am writing this on a Mac and I'm sitting in an office surrounded by Dell's (that I'm responsible for purchasing). Why Dell's? Because you still can't beat there service. They are one of the only companies out there that still comes out to you to repair/replace there product. HP and all the others want you to send it to them. In my office, I don't have time for that. But my company buying Dell's has nothing to do with the fact that they "only use Intel".

I am not an AMD Fanboy. I am not an Intel hater. I am simply uninspired and disappointed with Intel. They have made more mistakes in the last few years than they have been innovative. They have not deserved "market leader" status for a few years now and the only reason they still have it is because of their size (in my opinion).

By the way, I don't have time right now to check the facts, but I am pretty sure the Opteron came before the G5. The Opteron was released almost exactly 2 years ago... How long has the G5 been out?

Christopher Michaud Apr 25, 2005, 05:43pm EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: The road to dual core, Intel hits the gas
To Tom Spettigue

"...Who was first out the door with a 32/64bit CPU?"

"That, sir, was NOT AMD, but everyone's favorite, Apple Computers Incorporated upon the release of the PowerPC G5 central processing unit."

Uhh, the Opteron was out several months before Apple released their 32/64 computer. And since it is used in workstations and on some power user desktops, I would say AMD beat Apple on this one. AMD could have released the desktop version first, and beat Apple, but they were trying to (and have been successful) make inroads into the server market, where Apple has very little presence. It makes me laugh that people actually think Apple really beat AMD at this. Its more like AMD let Apple be first to the desktop, so they could concentrate on server market share.

"Not to mention, you don't quite remember the Itanium 2 processors that intel released with dual-cores. Those have 1-8MB of cache."

Uhh...those aren't dual core. They are single core processors simply certified for dual processor systems.

There are no dual core Itaniums at present.

The Register Enterprise Servers
Intel puts Itanium saviour on ice
By Ashlee Vance in Chicago
Published Thursday 24th February 2005 16:47 GMT
,,,,,
Itanium is the only high-end server chip that has yet to reach the dual-core stage. It will do that later this year when Montecito finally arrives. In the meantime,
,,,,,
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/24/intel_nicks_tukwila/


"Pentiums tend to excel at pro software, whilst AMD's tend to excel in gaming and, some 3D animation software."

Hmm...AMD wins the majority of benchmarks in Pro software too. This is the only place where the Pentium actually wins a couple.


guru Shane Apr 25, 2005, 06:03pm EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: The road to dual core, Intel hits the gas
Hey! I know! Let's make an thread about all the bad points Intel has! That will help me to feel better now that Intel is the first to release a dual-core desktop! (Btw, I'm not an AMD fanboy. I swear! Stop looking at me like that!)



LOL Have a nice day.

A_Pickle Apr 26, 2005, 04:04am EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: The road to dual core, Intel hits the gas
"...Intel IS NOT the first out the door with dual core "everything". Where is the dual core Xeon's? Did I hear 2006? AMD is planning to have everything out the door by June. As for the Itanium... what's the Itanium? Who's ever heard of the Itanium? Who even uses the Itanium? (I'm being facetious) I'm talking about real world processors here... Not some back room, no money making, nobodies ever heard of failure processor..."

Hey, guess what! You're in luck! There just so happens to REALLY BE a processor... made by Intel... called the Itanium! I mean, is that a coincidence or WHAT?

... Or... maybe... the Itanium was a "real world"... factually existent processor. It... does... in fact... exist. In the corporeal universe. Just... to let you know.

"...Anyway, this list could go on for a while but my point is, what has Intel done in the last few years that was really "ground breaking" and "extremely innovative"?"

Personally, I don't give a DAMN if your processors are ground breaking pieces of crap. I don't purchase a processor based on the fact that it's 64-bit... I buy it based on the fact of whether or not it's a good processor. I would also like to point out that a 64-bit processor was by no means "innovative." As pioneers of computing technology, we had long since made the jump from 16-bit to 32, and from there, 32-bit to 64. Undoubtedly, we will see a 128-bit in the coming decades.

I don't dislike AMD64's. I think they're very good processors. However, in my line of work, my $197.00 Northwood 3.0 GHz P4 will not lose to an equally priced Athlon when we do some video editing.

Furthermore, Intel has done quite a share of "groundbreaking" achievement. For one, AMD has not released the "first" multicore processor to be massively distributed. Intel holds that with the Pentium 4 840. I also consider the development of Hyperthreading to be a significant step in our quest to continue matching Moore's Law. Indeed, with the dual core, or even multicore processors, hyperthreading becomes multithreading, and can give a significant boost in power. One die would read as four logical processors.

Intel was also the first to engineer processors that were to be marketed above 1, 2, and 3 GHz. They are a mere 200 MHz from penetrating the 4 GHz barrier, and Pentiums are also ridiculously overclockable. I might add... Athlons haven't ever punched 6.00 GHz...

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=42655&...&pp=25

Insignificant? I suppose so....

"...By the way, I don't have time right now to check the facts, but I am pretty sure the Opteron came before the G5. The Opteron was released almost exactly 2 years ago... How long has the G5 been out?"

I'm not sure... but... Apple advertised it as both, "the world's fastest personal computer," and the, "world's first 64-bit desktop cpu."

http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/17/cx_jb_1017tentech.html

http://www.sonicstate.com/news/shownews.cfm?newsid=1188

"...Uhh...those aren't dual core. They are single core processors simply certified for dual processor systems..."

Upon proofreading that article, I stand corrected. But they are not to stay that way, in fact, they have been slated to come out with a quad-core, even octuple-core Itanium.


"...Hmm...AMD wins the majority of benchmarks in Pro software too. This is the only place where the Pentium actually wins a couple..."

Dead. Wrong.

Video Encoding: http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/processorsmemory/0,3902401...362,00.htm

Pentium takes the cake in all of them.

3D Rendering: http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/processorsmemory/0,3902401...363,00.htm

Well, admittedly. The Athlons single handedly trounce Pentiums in the arena of Bryce 3D... but the Pentiums take the storm at Lightwave and 3D Studio Max. I might add, which two of those three are used... "professionally?"

Internet Applications: http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/processorsmemory/0,3902401...364,00.htm

As if it matters, but the Pentiums take more of that cake here than the Athlons do. But hey, I won't be bashful...

Gaming: http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/processorsmemory/0,3902401...365,00.htm

*cough*

More recent benchmarks...

http://techreport.com/reviews/2004q1/pentium4-3.4ghz/index.x?pg=1

The AMD's win some, the Pentiums win some.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2003q3/workstation/index.x?pg=1

The AMD's flat lose this workstations battle. But wait, I don't know what I'm talking about. AMD's are supposed to take the cake in both pro and gaming software....

...Or maybe it's that some people can't acknowledge the strengths of the other processor. Well. There you have my two cents. I'll continue using my Northwood.




Dean Noneya Apr 26, 2005, 04:22am EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List

Edited: Apr 26, 2005, 04:57am EDT

 
>> Re: Re: The road to dual core, Intel hits the gas
Listen, this could go on forever (and to tell you the truth, it has continually gone on forever since AMD first introduced the Athlon... i.e. the "AMD vs. Intel" flame wars.) To tell you the truth, it's getting old.

But...

1. Yes, I did forget about "HyperThreading". That is a great innovation. Score one for Intel.

2. I originally said, "Who was first out the door with 32/64bit?" I did not say anything about "desktops", "servers" or "workstations". So there for, the Opteron was the first out the door with 32/64bit.

3. I know 64-bit has been around for a while. The Intanium was out for a few years before the Opteron was even close to being ready. But the MAJOR innovation was 32-bit AND 64-bit computing in the same CPU. Intel thought AMD was wasting its time pursuing 32/64bit. But when the Opteron finally hit the market and took off like wild fire, Intel realized they were wrong and were caught with their pants down. So they were basically forced to rush EMT64 out the door.

By saying "took off like wild fire" I mean the Opteron sold more units in its first 6 months on the market than the Intanium did in it's entire life span up to that point.

~~~~~~
"Embarrassingly, Itanium is not even the best-selling 64-bit processor with X86 compatibility. AMD's Opteron, introduced just last year, already outsells it."

"Opteron meets a market need: full X86 compatibility at full speed, plus 64-bit extensions that allow certain programs to access a larger memory space. And it delivers those capabilities without a sizable impact on either chip cost or power dissipation."

"Ironically, the company that once derided AMD's copycat strategy has been forced in this case to copy AMD's approach."
~~~~~~~~
Source... http://www.eetimes.com/op/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=18311000

By the way, when I made my comments about the Itanium did you not read that I was being "facetious"?

facetious:
adj.
Playfully jocular; humorous: facetious remarks.

But anyway, my point from the beginning was...

1. Intel has been outpaced more times than not in the past few years (not only by AMD, but IBM too). If it weren't for Intel's size and market dominance I believe Intel would be hurting right now. But because Intel can counter innovation with market dominance, massive production capability and (lets not forget) massive amounts of money, they are a hard target to bring down.

2. What really started my ranting wasn't the old "who's better than who" (AMD vs. Intel) argument, but it was the tone of the article. The last time I checked this site was called "Hardware Analysis". If the writers for this site want to make it so blatantly obvious that they are "Pro Intel" then they should change the name to "Intel Hardware Analysis" and get it out in the open.

A_Pickle Apr 26, 2005, 09:09am EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: The road to dual core, Intel hits the gas
"...2. What really started my ranting wasn't the old "who's better than who" (AMD vs. Intel) argument, but it was the tone of the article. The last time I checked this site was called "Hardware Analysis". If the writers for this site want to make it so blatantly obvious that they are "Pro Intel" then they should change the name to "Intel Hardware Analysis" and get it out in the open..."

Well, all thoughts aside, I thought the "Intel Dual Cores: Sizzling hot snake oil?" review was particularly harsh on intel's development, deriding it as ultimately useless and not worth it.

I didn't find that terribly pro-intel.

"...1. Intel has been outpaced more times than not in the past few years (not only by AMD, but IBM too). If it weren't for Intel's size and market dominance I believe Intel would be hurting right now. But because Intel can counter innovation with market dominance, massive production capability and (lets not forget) massive amounts of money, they are a hard target to bring down..."

Well, and they undoubtedly make most of their money via large computer distributors purchasing Pentiums by the thousands and assembling them, than the revenue they attain from individuals purchasing the for homebuilt machines.

Tim Apr 27, 2005, 11:06am EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: The road to dual core, Intel hits the gas
Wow... This is one long flaming thread :p

In truth, AMD is better prepared for the 64bit desktop and server market, since they have a processor that was DESIGNED with the intent to be used with dual cores, therefore you don't need a new socket. don't need a new motherboard, and don't need a new anything to be honest.

On the flip side, due to Intel's mass and monetary worth, they can afford to output cheaper dual-core processors, albeit you will need a new socket and motherboard to use such a thing, which I don't find very attractive.

Just my two cents. :p

AMD Athlon 3800+ X2
DFI SLI-DR NF4
Enermax NoiseTaker 600W
1GB Corsair 2225 1T DDR400
1x EVGA nVidia GeForce 6600GT (No SLI, yet.)
1x 80GB WD Caviar 8mb/7200rpm
Windows 2003 Standard Server

Write a Reply >>


 

    
 
 

  Topic Tools 
 
RSS UpdatesRSS Updates
 

  Related Articles 
 
 

  Newsletter 
 
A weekly newsletter featuring an editorial and a roundup of the latest articles, news and other interesting topics.

Please enter your email address below and click Subscribe.