Agree. It would be ashame if processors were in the same boat as sound cards.Bertster7 wrote:
Competition is always good.
Agreed. Even you people who dislike amd should want to keep them in business for the sheer purpose that competition always is best for the consumer. If Intel is the only chip manufacturer then we're, in a word, fucked.jsnipy wrote:
Agree. It would be ashame if processors were in the same boat as sound cards.Bertster7 wrote:
Competition is always good.
AMD will keep struggling along. Just like they used to with the K5 and K6 CPUs, remember them?EvilMonkeySlayer wrote:
I'd love to see AMD pull something out of their hat too, but I just don't see it coming. It looks as though nvidia has them beat with their 8800 series and Intel are wiping the floor with them. I just hope AMD don't go under, because if that happens we can look forward to Intel dropping the ball again and with AMD out of the picture that ball would never get picked up again.
Got a 4800+ and an X1900XTX here.
No, and I guess there's a reasonBertster7 wrote:
AMD will keep struggling along. Just like they used to with the K5 and K6 CPUs, remember them?
Last edited by daffytag (2007-05-11 06:40:39)
There was nothing wrong with the K6. It was good. Then the K7 (Athlon) was way better than anything Intel had.Stormscythe wrote:
No, and I guess there's a reasonBertster7 wrote:
AMD will keep struggling along. Just like they used to with the K5 and K6 CPUs, remember them?
Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-05-11 06:47:49)
That's not how it works. It all depends on degrees of parallelism. Serial operations still take just as long.daffytag wrote:
Wait, if each core is running at 2.9Ghz and they had 8 cores in total for that rig, would that mean the total Ghz is 23.2Ghz ?
Im running at just 1.8Ghz with a single core
Personally, I've been really interested in CPUs and the like from Prescott times onwards Before that it was just plug and play (which I regret).Bertster7 wrote:
You must not know your CPUs that well if you don't remember them (either that or I'm just old).
That's really recent.Stormscythe wrote:
Personally, I've been really interested in CPUs and the like from Prescott times onwards Before that it was just plug and play (which I regret).Bertster7 wrote:
You must not know your CPUs that well if you don't remember them (either that or I'm just old).
Struggling along? 7 months ago, AMD were dominating the CPU market with their new Processors back then. Then core2duo came out and AMD lost the battle, but not the war. They still have a lot of stuff to show the world, and I am sure they will come back on top.Bertster7 wrote:
AMD will keep struggling along. Just like they used to with the K5 and K6 CPUs, remember them?EvilMonkeySlayer wrote:
I'd love to see AMD pull something out of their hat too, but I just don't see it coming. It looks as though nvidia has them beat with their 8800 series and Intel are wiping the floor with them. I just hope AMD don't go under, because if that happens we can look forward to Intel dropping the ball again and with AMD out of the picture that ball would never get picked up again.
Got a 4800+ and an X1900XTX here.
Now it's AMD on top, then Intel, then AMD etc. I wish the CPU market will be as competitive as the GPU market.Zimmer wrote:
Struggling along? 7 months ago, AMD were dominating the CPU market with their new Processors back then. Then core2duo came out and AMD lost the battle, but not the war. They still have a lot of stuff to show the world, and I am sure they will come back on top.Bertster7 wrote:
AMD will keep struggling along. Just like they used to with the K5 and K6 CPUs, remember them?EvilMonkeySlayer wrote:
I'd love to see AMD pull something out of their hat too, but I just don't see it coming. It looks as though nvidia has them beat with their 8800 series and Intel are wiping the floor with them. I just hope AMD don't go under, because if that happens we can look forward to Intel dropping the ball again and with AMD out of the picture that ball would never get picked up again.
Got a 4800+ and an X1900XTX here.
Is it not extremely obvious that I was responding to the point about AMD going under? I was highlighting the fact that even when they weren't on top, or even really significantly competing with Intel, they struggled by and kept on going until they released the K7 which put them on top.Zimmer wrote:
Struggling along? 7 months ago, AMD were dominating the CPU market with their new Processors back then. Then core2duo came out and AMD lost the battle, but not the war. They still have a lot of stuff to show the world, and I am sure they will come back on top.Bertster7 wrote:
AMD will keep struggling along. Just like they used to with the K5 and K6 CPUs, remember them?EvilMonkeySlayer wrote:
I'd love to see AMD pull something out of their hat too, but I just don't see it coming. It looks as though nvidia has them beat with their 8800 series and Intel are wiping the floor with them. I just hope AMD don't go under, because if that happens we can look forward to Intel dropping the ball again and with AMD out of the picture that ball would never get picked up again.
Got a 4800+ and an X1900XTX here.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-05-11 10:08:20)
Berster, my 7 months was a random guess.Bertster7 wrote:
Is it not extremely obvious that I was responding to the point about AMD going under? I was highlighting the fact that even when they weren't on top, or even really significantly competing with Intel, they struggled by and kept on going until they released the K7 which put them on top.Zimmer wrote:
Struggling along? 7 months ago, AMD were dominating the CPU market with their new Processors back then. Then core2duo came out and AMD lost the battle, but not the war. They still have a lot of stuff to show the world, and I am sure they will come back on top.Bertster7 wrote:
AMD will keep struggling along. Just like they used to with the K5 and K6 CPUs, remember them?
Can you not see that extremely obvious point?
I'm saying I don't think AMD will go under (although the financial burden of their acquisition of ATI may cause them problems). They may pull ahead of Intel, but I'm not convinced they will, their new technologies seem clumsy and poorly conceived.
On top of that, AMD have NEVER dominated the CPU market. Their largest ever market share was less than 25%, while Intel's was over 70% - they may have overshadowed Intel CPUs performance wise (which they have done for many years), but they've never dominated the market.
I don't know where you get your 7 months figure from either. If you are talking from a performance perspective, which you must be considering the comparative market shares, then it has been 10 months since the release of the Conroe based CPUs last July - which outperformed all AMD's offerings.
And whilst they may be ahead again at some point, it is highly unlikely they will ever be more dominant in the marketplace than Intel. For the periods in between AMDs performance dominance, they will be struggling along - they're not the most profitable company at the best of times.Zimmer wrote:
Berster, my 7 months was a random guess.Bertster7 wrote:
Is it not extremely obvious that I was responding to the point about AMD going under? I was highlighting the fact that even when they weren't on top, or even really significantly competing with Intel, they struggled by and kept on going until they released the K7 which put them on top.Zimmer wrote:
Struggling along? 7 months ago, AMD were dominating the CPU market with their new Processors back then. Then core2duo came out and AMD lost the battle, but not the war. They still have a lot of stuff to show the world, and I am sure they will come back on top.
Can you not see that extremely obvious point?
I'm saying I don't think AMD will go under (although the financial burden of their acquisition of ATI may cause them problems). They may pull ahead of Intel, but I'm not convinced they will, their new technologies seem clumsy and poorly conceived.
On top of that, AMD have NEVER dominated the CPU market. Their largest ever market share was less than 25%, while Intel's was over 70% - they may have overshadowed Intel CPUs performance wise (which they have done for many years), but they've never dominated the market.
I don't know where you get your 7 months figure from either. If you are talking from a performance perspective, which you must be considering the comparative market shares, then it has been 10 months since the release of the Conroe based CPUs last July - which outperformed all AMD's offerings.
Apologies for my mis-wording, I meant that before AMD was the recommended processor to go for; everyone was saying so. But now that intel released their core2duo, then AMD went downhill. But (whenever the time was), AMD was the must have processor for gaming and a high spec PC.
Now it isn't.
You didn't in so many words.Zimmer wrote:
Quote me where I said they were not struggling along now.
They are, of course, struggling along now, but that may or may not change in the future.
What came after the K5 and K6? That's right it was the K7, which ushered in a new era of AMD CPUs outperforming their Intel counterparts.Zimmer wrote:
Struggling along? 7 months ago, AMD were dominating the CPU market with their new Processors back then. Then core2duo came out and AMD lost the battle, but not the war. They still have a lot of stuff to show the world, and I am sure they will come back on top.Bertster7 wrote:
AMD will keep struggling along. Just like they used to with the K5 and K6 CPUs, remember them?EvilMonkeySlayer wrote:
I'd love to see AMD pull something out of their hat too, but I just don't see it coming. It looks as though nvidia has them beat with their 8800 series and Intel are wiping the floor with them. I just hope AMD don't go under, because if that happens we can look forward to Intel dropping the ball again and with AMD out of the picture that ball would never get picked up again.
Got a 4800+ and an X1900XTX here.