Intel vs. AMD

@pacman- i just looked back at my computer science notes now and you're right, the eniac wasn't first.

 

Computer Science... about the only place you have to remember names like Colossus, ENIAC, UNIVAC, Clyde, SABRE, and Big Blue. LOL When you're done with the class, it only comes in handy for trivia unless you go into education. I enjoy learning the history of things, so I'm definitely not putting down the development of computers. I suspect it's probably the defining element (or curse) given us by the "Baby Boomers" (though the "seeds" were sewn earlier).

On a more serious note, ENIAC was involved with a first, the first reprogrammable computer for a full range of computations. It may not have been the first successful tube type computer, but ENIAC was one of the important developments in the evolution of computers.

From your notes, which was the first successful electronic computer? I'm thinking ABC.

 

PackMan777,

Actually I'm pretty sure that AMD knew what was coming but they just aren't a large enough company to be able to do anything about it all that fast. AMD had been saying all along that the Conroe would be at least 15-20% faster than the 64x2. I just don't think that they had the resources to keep up.

I've used a lot af AMD chips over the years and they were always a better choice that the Intel and usually exceeded a comparable Intel's performance. Back in those days all of this was designed by reverse engineering. Today both intel and AMD's CPUs are completely different other than the necessary instruction sets. AMD no longer has to reverse engineer anything. They gave us some very good processors and will more than likely continue to do so in the future. Today most people have more computing power sitting on thier desk than what was used on the Appolo Moon missions, and for a fraction of the cost!

I love progress! Helps keep me poor!LOL!! Still it's way better than the $1500-$1800 it used to cost to build a decent 486 complete system!

Happy computering,
theone

 

I dunno if anyone saw this but the Pentium 4 5xx/6xx series just took a HUGE price dive to compete with the Athlon 64 single-cores

P4 641 Cedar Mill 2MB L2 3.2GHz:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116003

P4 631 Cedar Mill 2MB L2 3.0GHz:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116004

P4 531 Prescott 1MB L2 3.0GHz:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116230

P4 640 Prescott 2MB L2 3.2GHz:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116197

P4 630 Prescott 2MB L2 3.0GHz:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116198

P4 541 Prescott 1MB L2 3.2GHz:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116231

P4 650 Prescott 2MB L2 3.4GHz:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116196


I'm really tempted to get that 640... I'ma order that right now in fact. I'll update when I get it... should be on Wed.

 

Estuansis,
Unless you are upgrading and existing Intel system, this is a much better buy!
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103037R

Mine runs right at FX-57 speeds for 1/4 of the cost! You can even get a T-Force MB and the CPU for under 150 and use all your existing stuff and come away with a much better single core machine!

Happy Computering,
theone

 

Russ,
that's good advice.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/12/11/intel_plans_1500_10ghz_pc/


Have a look at this.
Just imagine if it had become reality!!!
At the moment even 4.0ghz seems a tough barrier to conquer for both camps............

 

PackMan777,

With all due respect thier chips from the first 386, which came as a 40MHz compared to Intels 33MHz. Over the years AMD has had a better variety of speeds, hit several milestones before Intel and was always a bit more cost effective. My first 486 100 ran on a double pumped 50 MHz buss instead of Intels Quad pumped 25MHz buss. It was a much faster machine because of the higher buss speed! AMD's 50MHz chip ran almost as fast as the Intel 100 because it also ran on a 50 MHz buss while the Intel was stuck with 25MHz.

I'm not trying to split hairs or anything but the bottom line is we are where we are now because of all this competition. I know that AMD's problems as far as R&D go is not money. Thier biggest problem is manufacturing facilities. They are in the process of building more plants and they are supposed to open some this year. It also looks like the present production facilities will be used for newer stuff now that someone else is going to produce the entire A64 line up.

AMD stated at a press confrence when asked about the Conroe that the Conroe would be at least 15-20% faster than AMD's current chips. This was a couple of months before it's introduction! I know this for a fact because I posted it because I thought it was interesting news. I read all the AMD and Intel press confrences and I never saw AMD making fun of anything Intel was doing.

BTW! That 18 Billion dollars sure tells us just how much it costs to make CPUs. Considering the fire sale AMD has been running for almost a year now and yet they made all that money! Hmmm..... They'll be back and we'll all be the better for it!

Happy Computering,
theone

 

Have I tuned into the History Channel?

 

Looks like it. LOL

@Theonejrs

Well... glad you at least concede AMD is no longer the poor little CPU manufacturer. 1.8 billion was the amount, 18 billion for quarterly earnings would have been more than spectacular. I'd have been buying stock.

Until C2D Intel wasn't competing on the same level with AMD. Intel had faster chips and AMD had chips that did more per cycle. Since Intel was the measure for so many years, AMD named their processors in comparison to the Intels. For Instance an AMD 2800 (2250MHZ) would compare to an Intel 2800MHz processor. So, there's no need to say the slower AMD compared to the faster Intel; as BigDK said, that's history.

Since you posted about AMD conceding the C2D being better than the comparable AMD, will you give us a link to that. I'm still a little mixed up on the time line. Also just before C2D was released, there was AMD management making comments to Anandtech that C2D wouldn't outclass the AMD processors. Maybe "make fun of" was a bit strong, lets just say AMD staff was being sarcastic, even at that late date.

I wasn't splitting hairs either, it was just that I thought what you were saying was a bit far from the history that I've been taught. I was just wanting to see some corroborating information to support your claims. If you talk to enthusiasts and look at the old articles, the early P4 Northwoods were the leading processors to OC, not the AMDs at that time. Much of the earlier enthusiast articles and builds had Intel winning on the performance levels, though Intel wasn't competing with AMD on a performance basis at the time. That was about the time AMD created the performance category (and held it for a few years).

We've always had the political oriented enthusiasts that liked AMD because they were an alternative to the big blue "bully". Lets just say Intel controlled the market and AMD didn't become a serious competitor until the past few years. And it's been an exciting time where the competition has given a lot of rewards to the consumer, that I'll agree with you on. Now it's just 2 big companies duking it out. Hopefully we consumers will continue to reap a rich harvest of new tech advancements. Intel has kept on a roll the past year. It's time for AMD to give them another poke.

 

I'm upgrading my intel with the 541. I got the Gigabyte 965P S3 you showed me, remember?

 

PackMan777,

I guess I was going back a little too far in computer history, but the 386, 486 and the then so-called 586 were every bit the equal of the Intels of the day performance wise. I've owned both PIIs and K6-IIs and the K6-II was the better, faster chip. Interesting you mention the Northwood as I recently worked on a computer with a 2.2 Northwood and even with the 533MHz buss it was still as fast as a 2.8/800 Prescot!

I actually don't know very much about overclocking any of these as the only people who were doing any overclocking in those days were a small group of hard core enthusiasts and most Linux users. It was just too much of a pain as everything was done on the MB with jumpers. I didn't really start to get into overclocking until about 3 years ago.

As far as the link goes I'll have to poke around DVD Hounds and see if I can find it as it's been so long ago that I posted it. As I said I just thought it was interesting news at the time and we were all waiting for the Conroe to get here (very impatiently, I might add!). I wonder if you can get older press releases from AMD? I do remember it was before both Anandtech's and Tom's Hardware's benchmarks from the pre-release versions. I'll do my level best to find it. I gotta start saving that stuff! LOL!!!

Happy Computering,
theone

 

Yes, that's one of the things a person has to do if they're going to use past info to support current statements.

Since you mentioned the Northwood and Prescott situation, I'll go on record with others in saying Intel shot themself in the foot. I noticed with some of the posts by Mort81 and others that their Northwoods easily outperformed the Prescotts when OCing. They even had better benches at lower speeds. But going even farther back the Intels were usually as good or better than the AMDs. If the processors had been better AMD would have been cutting more into Intel's market share a lot sooner. I mentioned the P4 Northwood because that was the last CPU Intel had that could outperform the comparable AMD until the C2D won back the crown. Intel thought they could get more out of the architecture they had and they couldn't. By the time Intel saw the writing on the wall AMD was pulling ahead with hypertransport. The new architecture of the C2D proved Intel can still get the job done. AMD still makes some excellent processors. The problem is, Intel is making some better at competitive prices. That's what it's all about, value for the dollar, yen, pound or whatever.

 

PackMan777,

You are absolutely right, I just never forsaw that I would ever need it as it was just some sort of news with the goings on at AMD, and the pickins were slim on the thread at the time while everyone was waiting for the Conroe to appear!

More like AMD was whistling in the dark!LOL!! I would highly doubt that AMD didn't know what was coming as there are so many corporate spies out there these days. At 1.8 Billion dollars profit (gotta watch those decimal places), it makes you wonder just how much they would have made over the same period had the Conroe not been introduced!

Best Regards,
theone

 

Much more I'm sure. They would not have dropped prices, at least not as drastically.

I think C2D even had the spies fooled. Everyone was saying the test processors making the rounds were special samples. It appears the newer stock is better or as least as good. Intel wasn't trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes as many suspected. Other than a few sites giving legitimate reviews for what they saw with C2D samples, the popular support was for AMD, at least around the forums and by many enthusiasts.

 

PackMan777,

You know it's interesting. I was looking at the prices of all the Athlon 64x2/AM2s and the most expensive chip at Newegg is the 64x2 6000+ at $459. After that comes the 64x2 5600+ at $329. The rest of the lineup is priced between $85 and $259 which is a price range that the average person can handle. I think at 3.0GHz the 6000+ is the fastest clocked chip AMD has ever made. At the moment Newegg only has one socket 939 in stock, the 64x2 4600+ for $135 so I think that socket 939 is finally dead, or at least being given the last rites! LOL!!

You are absolutely right in the popular support for AMD. I guess everyone loves the underdog (wasn't that a cartoon character). The funniest thing is that even when AMD was on top, people still always considered them the underdog! Strange!

I think that with someone else building all the A64s under license to AMD bodes well for thier future by freeing up production facilities for newer and more inovative products. I don't think that they would have considered such a bold move unless they had something up thier sleeve. They flexed thier muscles a bit with the addition of faster 64x2s and the revamping they did on some of the older ones. It sure looks to me like the next 6 to 12 months could get very interesting indeed!

Just to whet those appetites, this is from a press conference demonstration, Feb. 28, 1907.

While I realize this is server technology, it will eventually trickle down to mainstream computing. More importantly, the technology has been demonstrated and it works!

Happy Computering,
theone

 

AMD have been busy little bees haven't they!!!

Has anyone seen a review of the x2 6000+ processor??

 

edited due to wrong forum!

 

Crowy,

This is all I could find but I haven't been at it long.
http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=929&cid=1

I wonder if you can overclock it?

Get this! Newegg has it for $459, while Tiger Direct is selling the same exact thing for over $200 more at $669. That's a good bit over the retail price which is $464! Update on that! I went to make sure of the price and Tiger Direct dropped the price to $499.99. I'll bet they got some nasty e-mails and phone calls. The price came down in less than 5 hours! It's still $35 more than retail! So "Up Your's too", Tiger Direct!

Happy Compuyering,
theone