I was talking cpu wise with AMD, after the conroe comes out many people probably will switch over.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
You are so naive that it's pathetic. Intel hasn't been around that much longer than AMD, which was founded in 1969, in case you were wondering.gburndred wrote:
I said it before and i'll say it again. AMD users are in denial. They don't ever think that AMD will be beaten down by intel. I'll tell you guys something, in a short while, you'll all be wishing that you use intel. Intel has been around longer and has more money. They know exactly what to make. AMD is soon going to be flushed down the toilet.
You are also pretty stupid to want AMD to go away. With Intel as the only presence in the CPU market, the need to continue R&D would be slashed, and prices would go way up. It is competition that drives innovation and keeps costs down. If you think an Intel only world would be a great place for the computer market, you are seriously delusional.
As for AMD being flushed down the toilet, I highly doubt it. As I said, they've been around since 1969 and haven't been flushed down the toilet yet. They have other business aspects besides their CPUs, and the acquisition of ATi will expand on that; that means income from other sources.
Lets also not forget that enthusiasts are a minute fraction of the market. The OEM market is where the big money is made, and most consumers don't know the difference between a Conroe or A64, and will take whatever they can get for the best price. Lets also not forget that Dell said they would be offering servers with Opteron processors. Server side chips have very large profit margins, so AMD will continue to have revenue from those sources.
64X2=128 yes. Not a true 128bit.
Most of the stuff I do on my computer at home is gaming, and games have been for the last little, and will continue to be in the future, GPU limited so I just don't see myself spending the money on a Conroe processor.gburndred wrote:
I was talking cpu wise with AMD, after the conroe comes out many people probably will switch over.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
You are so naive that it's pathetic. Intel hasn't been around that much longer than AMD, which was founded in 1969, in case you were wondering.gburndred wrote:
I said it before and i'll say it again. AMD users are in denial. They don't ever think that AMD will be beaten down by intel. I'll tell you guys something, in a short while, you'll all be wishing that you use intel. Intel has been around longer and has more money. They know exactly what to make. AMD is soon going to be flushed down the toilet.
You are also pretty stupid to want AMD to go away. With Intel as the only presence in the CPU market, the need to continue R&D would be slashed, and prices would go way up. It is competition that drives innovation and keeps costs down. If you think an Intel only world would be a great place for the computer market, you are seriously delusional.
As for AMD being flushed down the toilet, I highly doubt it. As I said, they've been around since 1969 and haven't been flushed down the toilet yet. They have other business aspects besides their CPUs, and the acquisition of ATi will expand on that; that means income from other sources.
Lets also not forget that enthusiasts are a minute fraction of the market. The OEM market is where the big money is made, and most consumers don't know the difference between a Conroe or A64, and will take whatever they can get for the best price. Lets also not forget that Dell said they would be offering servers with Opteron processors. Server side chips have very large profit margins, so AMD will continue to have revenue from those sources.
Better video card yes, processor no.
Last edited by Agent_Dung_Bomb (2006-07-27 11:35:08)
I personally dont care which is better. Ive had Intel CPU's, then AMD's, and now it may be back to Intel.. Whatever is the best bang for the buck is the best as far as I am concerned. Conroe is impressive, but Im sure AMD will come out with something that will compete, if not whatever.. doesnt matter as long as they contiune to compete and get consumers better products at better prices.
Why does this topic cause so many arguements.. every fvckin forum is dripping with these pointless arguements. Just be glad that, in the end you and I get a better CPU than what we have now...
Why does this topic cause so many arguements.. every fvckin forum is dripping with these pointless arguements. Just be glad that, in the end you and I get a better CPU than what we have now...
Aments-madchild wrote:
I personally dont care which is better. Ive had Intel CPU's, then AMD's, and now it may be back to Intel.. Whatever is the best bang for the buck is the best as far as I am concerned. Conroe is impressive, but Im sure AMD will come out with something that will compete, if not whatever.. doesnt matter as long as they contiune to compete and get consumers better products at better prices.
Why does this topic cause so many arguements.. every fvckin forum is dripping with these pointless arguements. Just be glad that, in the end you and I get a better CPU than what we have now...
core 2 duo!
Video cards are always a must to upgrade. But then for the cpu it comes down to money and what you prefer in a cpu.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
Most of the stuff I do on my computer at home is gaming, and games have been for the last little, and will continue to be in the future, GPU limited so I just don't see myself spending the money on a Conroe processor.gburndred wrote:
I was talking cpu wise with AMD, after the conroe comes out many people probably will switch over.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
You are so naive that it's pathetic. Intel hasn't been around that much longer than AMD, which was founded in 1969, in case you were wondering.
You are also pretty stupid to want AMD to go away. With Intel as the only presence in the CPU market, the need to continue R&D would be slashed, and prices would go way up. It is competition that drives innovation and keeps costs down. If you think an Intel only world would be a great place for the computer market, you are seriously delusional.
As for AMD being flushed down the toilet, I highly doubt it. As I said, they've been around since 1969 and haven't been flushed down the toilet yet. They have other business aspects besides their CPUs, and the acquisition of ATi will expand on that; that means income from other sources.
Lets also not forget that enthusiasts are a minute fraction of the market. The OEM market is where the big money is made, and most consumers don't know the difference between a Conroe or A64, and will take whatever they can get for the best price. Lets also not forget that Dell said they would be offering servers with Opteron processors. Server side chips have very large profit margins, so AMD will continue to have revenue from those sources.
Better video card yes, processor no.
I am currently running an AMD, but also have an old P4 2.4GHz, so I'm not opposed to using products from either company. If my home needs change and I need a system that is used regularly for CPU intensive tasks, I may very well consider Conroe.gburndred wrote:
Video cards are always a must to upgrade. But then for the cpu it comes down to money and what you prefer in a cpu.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
Most of the stuff I do on my computer at home is gaming, and games have been for the last little, and will continue to be in the future, GPU limited so I just don't see myself spending the money on a Conroe processor.gburndred wrote:
I was talking cpu wise with AMD, after the conroe comes out many people probably will switch over.
Better video card yes, processor no.
uhm sorry GPU limited..?!gburndred wrote:
Video cards are always a must to upgrade. But then for the cpu it comes down to money and what you prefer in a cpu.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
Most of the stuff I do on my computer at home is gaming, and games have been for the last little, and will continue to be in the future, GPU limited so I just don't see myself spending the money on a Conroe processor.gburndred wrote:
I was talking cpu wise with AMD, after the conroe comes out many people probably will switch over.
Better video card yes, processor no.
a CF/ SLI is better than every CPU in store...
so the gaming experience is CPU limited...sry dude..but thats the right thing
yeah but still very few people run sli crossfire. in general most games on most pc's are still gpu limited especially @ higher resjOiNt_frAGGeR wrote:
uhm sorry GPU limited..?!gburndred wrote:
Video cards are always a must to upgrade. But then for the cpu it comes down to money and what you prefer in a cpu.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
Most of the stuff I do on my computer at home is gaming, and games have been for the last little, and will continue to be in the future, GPU limited so I just don't see myself spending the money on a Conroe processor.
Better video card yes, processor no.
a CF/ SLI is better than every CPU in store...
so the gaming experience is CPU limited...sry dude..but thats the right thing
Intels new Extreme Edition Core 2 X6800 blew AMD out of the water and was just featured in maximum pc's dream machine 11AveryHawk wrote:
Well seeing as PC video gamers don't make up but about 1/10th of the CPU market I would much rather take the other 9/10 to the bank.... AMD has only bested Intel in sales in the "desktop" segment for just about 6 quarters (1.5 years). AMD has never had higher than 9% total CPU market share. Intel has taken HUGE steps to fix their internal structure and has taken their "lumps" and is now on their way back to the top.specialistx2324 wrote:
Took the words right out of my mouth.diglow~Flow wrote:
Thats true... But
AMD outbeat intel performance wise not Stock prices... not only that AMD bought it anyways.
you dont See AMD putting a crap load of commercials on tv. every computer commercial on tv revolves around one noobish processor: Intel.. Dell will never in this lifetime have AMD processors.
Actually they already have AMD processors in their Alienware division Strike one ...they also have them in their server line in the Large business group Strike two
scan the anadtech forums abount AMD processors. They have a better track record than Intel. Intel is way too expensive, inefficient, and for gods sakes it overheats like a microwave cooking rubber.
Have you been under a rock lately? AMD FX60 and FX62 chips are up at 125watts and did you forget the t-birds and their heat problems? Strike 3
Intel makes its money with their claim that they have a faster clock speed...blah...blah blah. but who has more calculations per seccond: AMD. who has more pipelines: AMD, do the research people.
Are you comparing current AMD to Netburst P4's? the current Conroe chips are completely destroying the "enthusiast level" (FX series) parts from AMD and to quote the "spirit" of AMD's PR rating marketing strategy "it isn't about the Ghz it is about what they do for you" Again the current tech shows Intel on top in the "desktop" market.
Ask any pc videogamer out there and 9 times out of 10, they would go fro AMD.. and that is something you can take to the bank....
What im saying though in this thread is that ppl are gonna buy that board with chipset(that only runs on AMD) if they want better gaming or better Graphical programs...
1. The AMDFX62 has been out for months now 2. The reason why intel can have the time and money to make better processors is cause of the dumb naive people that buy them thinking that a 3.0ghz is fast with a cheap ass monitor, mouse, and keyboard for $399 3. The reason why the can sell their stuff so cheap is that the companys they buy it from they will install huge amounts of their crap in the os that isnt needed 4. The new processor dell came out almost no one will own it and its about neck and neck price/performance with the fx62 if not worse.
Face it, AMD is trying to catch up with Intel due to the fact now that Intel has improved and is creating more powerful processors. Merging with ATI is going to create new management issues during a time AMD should be focusing on beating Intel, not merging with a completely different company. Its going to hurt AMD in the short term, hurt them enough to fall behind again and let Intel take center stage. In the long term I am not sure, if they can orchestrate the GPU, CPU, and chipsets now you can get some very powerful machines. HOWEVER, this is not the time to merge, and AMD is going to pay for that.
While Intel sits back and laughs, if they merged with Nvidia, it would spell game over for AMD
While Intel sits back and laughs, if they merged with Nvidia, it would spell game over for AMD
i dont get it... im really confused, what are you trying to say?diglow~Flow wrote:
What im saying though in this thread is that ppl are gonna buy that board with chipset(that only runs on AMD) if they want better gaming or better Graphical programs...
*Logs on to shareholder account and swaps shares from Intel to AMDspecialistx2324 wrote:
Ask any pc videogamer out there and 9 times out of 10, they would go fro AMD.. and that is something you can take to the bank....
that made me lawledSarrk wrote:
*Logs on to shareholder account and swaps shares from Intel to AMDspecialistx2324 wrote:
Ask any pc videogamer out there and 9 times out of 10, they would go fro AMD.. and that is something you can take to the bank....
Kids, kids, kids.... Calma downa. You've all got yourselves in a tizzy over nothing. Who cares which company has the bestest most fastest processor out at the second? I guarantee that my dual-cpu workstation running a pair of dual core opterons will outperform this new, shiny processor from Intel. And probably use 1/2 the electricity. And I KNOW that my dual fireGL's will spank the shit out of whatever new and shiny consumer-level toy nVidia has out.DarkZealot89 wrote:
Face it, AMD is trying to catch up with Intel due to the fact now that Intel has improved and is creating more powerful processors. Merging with ATI is going to create new management issues during a time AMD should be focusing on beating Intel, not merging with a completely different company. Its going to hurt AMD in the short term, hurt them enough to fall behind again and let Intel take center stage. In the long term I am not sure, if they can orchestrate the GPU, CPU, and chipsets now you can get some very powerful machines. HOWEVER, this is not the time to merge, and AMD is going to pay for that.
While Intel sits back and laughs, if they merged with Nvidia, it would spell game over for AMD
The point I'm trying to make is that the gaming market does not make companies any money. It drives innovation, to be sure, but answer me this:
Chuy is going into the hosting business. He needs to buy, in essence, a server farm. Lets say for the sake of argument, he's getting 500 dual-cpu rackmount machines. They need to be powerful, but not the latest and greates tech out there. AFTER he buys these machines, he has to keep them cool, and give them power.
This is where AMD is making their money right now. Opterons are the shizzle, and that's why companies like Microsoft are buying them by the thousand. They use half the power of Xenons, don't have the defects of the Itanium line, and are, well, cheap. You win with respect to every side.
Realistically, I wonder how much Intel is actually making on each of their $1300 processors. My guess? Not much. But, as you fanboys have demonstrated, holding the speed title is important. I guess that's what's driving them. But be realistic.
If you can buy 2 $200 processors that are cooler and use electricity than 1 single $1300 processor that is of equal power, which are you going to pick?
That's what I thought.
intel core 2 duo xeon CPU's kick opterons ass... and uses less power
and cost how much more? Remember, this is a price/benefit equation. If I've got 500 three year old Tyan Mobos that are 940 pin sockets, and I need to add another 50, am I really going to change everything for a little bit of performance? Not hardly friend. Not hardly.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
intel core 2 duo xeon CPU's kick opterons ass... and uses less power
I have to admit, you intrigued me. I wanted to check out your claims for their veracity. This is what I found:cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
intel core 2 duo xeon CPU's kick opterons ass... and uses less power
From Tom's Hardware (Link)
AMD Opteron:
It has been the faster processor, especially for floating point operations
HyperTransport interconnects processors and core logic. This point-to-point interconnect scales much better than bus interfaces.
Power consumption is acceptable even when under load
Socket 940 is the basis for all Opteron models that have been released. Usually you can upgrade to one of the dual core models.
Each processor has its own memory controller.
No FB-DIMM memory is required. Registered DDR400 memory is enough.
Quad core Opterons will require a Socket F platform.
Intel Xeon:
The Front Side Bus is the interface and a potential bottleneck between the processor(s) and the chipset northbridge. The 5000 chipset widens this bottleneck by implementing seperate Front Side Busser per processor (DIB).
Dual core Xeon Paxville DP has high to very high power requirements.
Dual Core Xeon Dempsey 5000 has high power requirements.
Less flexible platform design: A Xeon Nocona or Irwindale (socket 604) can only be upgraded with a dual core Xeon Paxville DP. If you want a Xeon 5000 (Dempsey) or Xeon 5100 (Woodcrest) you need the 5000 chipset platform for socket 771 (Bensley).
Quad channel DDR2 memory controller offers more bandwidth, but requires FB-DIM modules
Intel's chipset and FB-DIMM components require more energy than the Opteron equivalents
Quad core Xeons are technically feasible for socket 771.
______________________________________________________________
This from the summary at the end of the article:
However, we do not see Woodcrest knocking out AMD, since the HyperTransport architecture remains the best choice for 4P solutions thanks to its point-to-point layout and dedicated memory controller per processor. Also, socket F will accelerate HyperTransport links to make sure that multi-core processors don't suddenly saturate the interface.
Finally, Intel might have to convince SMB customers of the benefits of fully buffered memory, because a 2P Opteron system does still provide a very good value - especially if you can live with 4 - 8 GB of memory. FB-DIMMs will only have a serious benefit if multiple modules are deployed.
______________________________________________________________
I personally enjoyed the discussion on FB-DIMMs. A wonderful approach to the increasing latencies, for sure, but at a very high power consumption price. I have 8 sticks in my PC workstation, which means that's 40 more watts of power, not to mention the extra 10 for the northbridge.
For now, I'll stick with my AMD workstation setups. They are fantastic at what they do, and literally cut my electricity bill in half.
What im trying to say is that gaming ppl like myself are gonna want Graphics in there gaming and AMD is gonna come out on top with this project there doing and ppl with intel are gonna want better Graphics as well so...cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
i dont get it... im really confused, what are you trying to say?diglow~Flow wrote:
What im saying though in this thread is that ppl are gonna buy that board with chipset(that only runs on AMD) if they want better gaming or better Graphical programs...
AMD ftw !
what has amd and intel got to do w/ graphics? unless you want to run on intergrated their cpus incease framerate in games only because the bottleneck is the cpu, not gpu. filling up the cpu bottleneck will make the bottleneck the gpu and so ondiglow~Flow wrote:
What im trying to say is that gaming ppl like myself are gonna want Graphics in there gaming and AMD is gonna come out on top with this project there doing and ppl with intel are gonna want better Graphics as well so...cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
i dont get it... im really confused, what are you trying to say?diglow~Flow wrote:
What im saying though in this thread is that ppl are gonna buy that board with chipset(that only runs on AMD) if they want better gaming or better Graphical programs...
Yeah but once they combine the 2 its just gonna be a WOW Performance. you gotta think having a combined Gpu with the CPU and i having Crossfire there is gonna be a lot of Ati users and AMD users.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
what has amd and intel got to do w/ graphics? unless you want to run on intergrated their cpus incease framerate in games only because the bottleneck is the cpu, not gpu. filling up the cpu bottleneck will make the bottleneck the gpu and so ondiglow~Flow wrote:
What im trying to say is that gaming ppl like myself are gonna want Graphics in there gaming and AMD is gonna come out on top with this project there doing and ppl with intel are gonna want better Graphics as well so...cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
i dont get it... im really confused, what are you trying to say?