AMD wins back performance crown

[Roger Squires]

> If AMD spreads the news, is able to lower prices, and releases the desktop version in time,

They've already failed at all of these. It should have been out months
ago; motherboard manufacturers and oems are *still* taking a wait-and-see
attitude; there's no 64bit Windows ready; and the delay has been a gift to
Intel, allowing them ample time to ramp and tweak the P4 til any Athlon64
speed advantage is gone, not to mention the cool new features they've added.

Who's going to buy an expensive 1.8ghz Athlon64 that is barely on a par with
an P4-3200, and still loses in the all-important media benchmarks? Not me,
not until it's shown this thing can overclock reliably to 2.5ghz anyway.

rms

[rstlne]

"Roger Squires" <rsquires@flash.net> wrote in message
news:pfU%a.1997$702.68770971@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com... If AMD spreads the news, is able to lower prices, and releases the desktop version in time, They've already failed at all of these. It should have been out
months ago; motherboard manufacturers and oems are *still* taking a wait-and-see attitude; there's no 64bit Windows ready; and the delay has been a gift to Intel, allowing them ample time to ramp and tweak the P4 til any Athlon64 speed advantage is gone, not to mention the cool new features they've
added. Who's going to buy an expensive 1.8ghz Athlon64 that is barely on a par
with an P4-3200, and still loses in the all-important media benchmarks? Not
me, not until it's shown this thing can overclock reliably to 2.5ghz anyway. rms

you shouldnt buy into the "2.5" ghz thing..
I mean if the a64 is running at 2ghz then that would be like a 4ghz system
(kinda sorta) ..

One big problem is that intel was saying DO NO RELEASE working boards for
AMD.. Keep your boards in development and dont release them....
Now I cant give you proof of that, that's illegal BUT that is what other
company reps have been reporting..
Support the new 64bit amd chips and expect to loose INTEL research money
If that's not the case then tell me why MSI are the only company that
released their Opteron mobo (only company as in the big home retail market)
So much of it is down to big brother.. Amd does a horrible job at
advertising too, their PR sucks ass..
This is a direction that technology needs to move in and I have to say that
I think it's great that AMD have decided to do it, I just hope that they
have more luck than the Alpha systems..
The fact that we are still 1 month away from release of these chips means
that we will see some improvements before it hits the market.. Plus all
benchmarks now are not going to be design'd around the chip and they'll not
show the true potential of it.. I think writing benchmarks design'd to
"test" things like MMX and such was pretty lame, It worked great for INTEL
for so many years.. having benchmarks that are made around their chips.. So
lets see a 64bit os benchmark and then see how it compares on the p4
systems.. ohh wait, the p4's wont run it.. they score the worst mark?

[Frank Weston]

"Roger Squires" <rsquires@flash.net> wrote in message
news:pfU%a.1997$702.68770971@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com... If AMD spreads the news, is able to lower prices, and releases the desktop version in time, They've already failed at all of these. It should have been out
months ago; motherboard manufacturers and oems are *still* taking a wait-and-see attitude; there's no 64bit Windows ready; and the delay has been a gift to Intel, allowing them ample time to ramp and tweak the P4 til any Athlon64 speed advantage is gone, not to mention the cool new features they've
added. Who's going to buy an expensive 1.8ghz Athlon64 that is barely on a par
with an P4-3200, and still loses in the all-important media benchmarks? Not
me, not until it's shown this thing can overclock reliably to 2.5ghz anyway.

I can't disagree with Roger. I'm a long time AMD fan, but a few months ago
I jumped to an Intel 2.8, 800 FSB, and I have to say It's a pretty sweet
setup. The Athlon64 may be a little too little a little too late for the
reasons Roger points out. Hopefully AMD will come through with a processor
that's competitive cost and performance wise sometime soon, because they're
probably the only thing standing between us and paying $thousands$ for an
Intel processor.

[Robert Myers]

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 19:52:13 -0400, "Frank Weston"
<frank@weston-american.com> wrote:
Hopefully AMD will come through with a processorthat's competitive cost and performance wise sometime soon, because they'reprobably the only thing standing between us and paying $thousands$ for anIntel processor.

That will happen only if you want the fastest processor going. What
we have right now is a really anomalous situation where the world's
fastest CPU to be found outside a Cray can be had for chicken feed.
*That* situation isn't going to last because it isn't sustainable,
regardless of what happens to AMD.

Opteron is an interesting wild card, but it will probably do more to
cause anxiety among Intel execs than to save AMD's hide. My suspicion
is that AMD is not nearly as enthusiastic about Athlon64 as are its
hobbyist cheerleaders, because I think AMD knows full well that its
long term survival is more tied to competing with Centrino for the
mobile/low power market that is growing than it is to competing for a
desktop market that is shrinking.

RM

[Minotaur]

"Never anonymous Bud" <thekat@san.rxyzr.com> wrote in message
news:iri0kv43vjv8h4jj96b3m6hhkqv2kjf0ha@4ax.com... Separating himself from Baghdad Bob, "Frank Weston"
<frank@weston-american.com> whined:I can't disagree with Roger. I'm a long time AMD fan, but a few months
agoI jumped to an Intel 2.8, 800 FSB, and I have to say It's a pretty sweetsetup. I went with a P4 2.6HT last week, and it's VERY nice. In addition to running 2 Seti@home clients as fast as my XP2500 runs one, it's just stunning with Encarta 2004, NO stalls, stutters, or slowdowns no matter HOW fast I change what I'm looking at.

It's a pity both open Seti clients are fighting for the same cache space
inside the CPU.
Seti shall run faster with HT turned off in the BIOS, go give it a try...
Happy with this XP2500 (210X10.5), so what if it takes 1hr56min on average
to complete a unit *8)
To reply by email, remove the XYZ. Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk. It's your SIG, say what you want to say....

[Stacey]

rstlne wrote:
"Roger Squires" <rsquires@flash.net> wrote in message
Not me, not until it's shown this thing can overclock reliably to 2.5ghz anyway. rms you shouldnt buy into the "2.5" ghz thing.. I mean if the a64 is running at 2ghz then that would be like a 4ghz system (kinda sorta) ..

Not even kinda sorta..

http://www.anandtech.com/guides/viewfaq.html?i=112


--

Stacey

[Stacey]

Bitsbucket wrote:
You know, I think that all the marketing hype has gone to allot of heads,

Yep, very few people need what a $40 XP1700 can take care of. Only reason I
ever need more "juice" is for doing video rendering, the rest is easily
handled by almost any system today.
--

Stacey

[Stacey]

JK wrote:

, not to mention the cool new features they've added. Cool? Look at the high power consumption numbers for the higher end Pentium 4 chips. http://users.erols.com/chare/elec.htm

Thanx for pointing out the opterons use more power than ANY of intels chips!
I can only guess the faster AMD64's will use even more? Bet they'll be easy
to cool! <G>

And given the XP3200 uses 77 max W vs intels 82 max W I don't see anything
for AMD zealots to be getting all excited about. How much is 5 watts going
to cost someone to run a month? And given the interface is larger and the
heat sink can be bigger than an AMD's on most boards, cooling isn't going
to be an issue.

Next time you want to use this type of link you might think about reading
the newest specs posted there? Next week these numbers might not be
something you'd want to post seeing as how you're here to push AMD's chips
not to help people choose the chip that is the best product at the time....
--

Stacey

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <uid0kvkoho7qurpcpbtn37nsd0163h469c@4ax.com>,
rmyers@rustuck.com says... On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 19:52:13 -0400, "Frank Weston" <frank@weston-american.com> wrote:Hopefully AMD will come through with a processorthat's competitive cost and performance wise sometime soon, because they'reprobably the only thing standing between us and paying $thousands$ for anIntel processor. That will happen only if you want the fastest processor going. What we have right now is a really anomalous situation where the world's fastest CPU to be found outside a Cray can be had for chicken feed. *That* situation isn't going to last because it isn't sustainable, regardless of what happens to AMD.

I think you're wrong. I think this situation *very*
maintainable, if for no other reason than the sheer economics of
the mass market. The cost of developing an advance processor and
its associated semiconductor process (which pays for the
"Cray's" BTW) so dwarfs the incremental manufacturing cost of
said processor the table *has* tilted to the mass market micro.
....in much the same way the market tilted toward mass-market
software (Win).
Opteron is an interesting wild card, but it will probably do more to cause anxiety among Intel execs than to save AMD's hide. My suspicion is that AMD is not nearly as enthusiastic about Athlon64 as are its hobbyist cheerleaders, because I think AMD knows full well that its long term survival is more tied to competing with Centrino for the mobile/low power market that is growing than it is to competing for a desktop market that is shrinking.

I don't think AMD feels this way at all. Indeed they've always
been a renegade group (Sanders is one of the more colorful
characters of SiCity), but they do think they can give Intel a
bloody nose in a "fair fight". AMD has been tenacious (if not
wholly successful) since the K5. They're cruising for a head-
banger.

--
Keith

[David Winter]

And IMHO, they need to do their own chipsets, not leave it to 3rd party
vendors who can only see the gaming market.

DW

"Frank Weston" <frank@weston-american.com> wrote in message
news:t66cncAHvc_aiN2iXTWJjA@comcast.com...
: "Roger Squires" <rsquires@flash.net> wrote in message
: news:pfU%a.1997$702.68770971@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
: > > If AMD spreads the news, is able to lower prices,
: > > and releases the desktop version in time,
: >
: > They've already failed at all of these. It should have been out
: months
: > ago; motherboard manufacturers and oems are *still* taking a
wait-and-see
: > attitude; there's no 64bit Windows ready; and the delay has been a gift
to
: > Intel, allowing them ample time to ramp and tweak the P4 til any
Athlon64
: > speed advantage is gone, not to mention the cool new features they've
: added.
: >
: > Who's going to buy an expensive 1.8ghz Athlon64 that is barely on a par
: with
: > an P4-3200, and still loses in the all-important media benchmarks? Not
: me,
: > not until it's shown this thing can overclock reliably to 2.5ghz anyway.
: >
:
: I can't disagree with Roger. I'm a long time AMD fan, but a few months
ago
: I jumped to an Intel 2.8, 800 FSB, and I have to say It's a pretty sweet
: setup. The Athlon64 may be a little too little a little too late for the
: reasons Roger points out. Hopefully AMD will come through with a
processor
: that's competitive cost and performance wise sometime soon, because
they're
: probably the only thing standing between us and paying $thousands$ for an
: Intel processor.
:
:

[David Winter]

I edit video, and encode MPEG-2. Tell me about Grunt and HT. The hardware
encoder DVD-Recorders and hardware CODEC cards look very nice when you have
to wait 10 hours for a single video DVD's contents (2hrs 21mins) to render.
It's about 4.5:1, which is par - but that's the limits of a P4 1.5 on i845E
with 1.5G of PC133.

I need a major kick-on to make good use of my new A06.

DW

"Bitsbucket" <user90@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d5ea49990fd9819506512d80f3d34cb2@news.teranews.com...
: You know,
: I think that all the marketing hype has gone to allot of heads, I have an
: OLD 2200 XP that for what I use it for is more than adequate. I have TONS
of
: crap loading at startup, open 5 to 10 apps at a time and work in all of
: them. Running XP pro, it's as stable and fast as I need, now don't get me
: wrong, I'd love to have bleeding edge too, but at what cost and what REAL
: speed increase? My Hard drives are still the bottleneck, or should I say
: controllers (IDE) Hell I'm just a poor little computer tech, that makes a
: living working on networks/business PCs and home PCs. Most of the people I
: service have no use for the power they have now, but by golly they have
got
: to have NEW!! I ask, what does the machine not do now that you need it to
: do......."well nothing" so I ask why do you need to upgrade.....they have
no
: answer. I am an AMD fan just because I like the underdog, always have and
: always will. I refuse to pay Intel's ridiculous prices when I can have all
: the speed I need for a fraction of the price. I could see someone
compiling,
: or doing some rendering that takes gobs of time needing the fastest thing
: out there, but what percent of the market is that? maybe 10% 20% maybe?
The
: rest are running Outlook, Explorer (and buying shoes/golf clubs/what have
: you, basically fucking off at work using the old alt tab trick when the
boss
: comes by) and Word and Excel. I had one company that just used a terminal
: emulator to log into a SCO box and work in that all day, hell they were
: still using P-200's!!! You don't need anything even CLOSE to bleeding edge
: for that. But Intel and AMD gotta sell to stay in business, I'm glad the
: competition is there to keep prices in check, but WTF? MOST people don't
: need (or even know how to use) what they have now. I'm working on a box
: right now that the woman keeps OTHER peoples critical financial data on
and
: then lets her grand kids play games and run Kazza on it....GEEZE, it not
: even backed up for crying out loud!...Oh well off the soap box....have a
: good one everybody......
: What say ye, computer geeks?
: Bitsbucket
: Life is a grindstone; whether it grinds you
: down, or polishes you up, depends on what
: you are made of.
:
: "Roger Squires" <rsquires@flash.net> wrote in message
: news:pfU%a.1997$702.68770971@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
: > > If AMD spreads the news, is able to lower prices,
: > > and releases the desktop version in time,
: >
: > They've already failed at all of these. It should have been out
: months
: > ago; motherboard manufacturers and oems are *still* taking a
wait-and-see
: > attitude; there's no 64bit Windows ready; and the delay has been a gift
to
: > Intel, allowing them ample time to ramp and tweak the P4 til any
Athlon64
: > speed advantage is gone, not to mention the cool new features they've
: added.
: >
: > Who's going to buy an expensive 1.8ghz Athlon64 that is barely on a par
: with
: > an P4-3200, and still loses in the all-important media benchmarks? Not
: me,
: > not until it's shown this thing can overclock reliably to 2.5ghz anyway.
: >
: > rms
: >
: >
:
:
: ---
: Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
: Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
: Version: 6.0.510 / Virus Database: 307 - Release Date: 8/15/2003
:
:

[Paul Tiseo]

In article <uid0kvkoho7qurpcpbtn37nsd0163h469c@4ax.com>,
rmyers@rustuck.com says... I think AMD knows full well that its long term survival is more tied to competing with Centrino for the mobile/low power market that is growing than it is to competing for a desktop market that is shrinking.

Where are your figures for that?

Also, what are the relative sizes of these markets and where will
they be in the short- to medium-term? It might be true that the desktop
market is shrinking and that the mobile market is growing, but then
again that could be true with the desktop market still always remaining
larger and thus just as or more important a grab for AMD relative to the
mobile market.

----------------------------------------
Paul Tiseo, Systems Programmer
Research Computing Facility, Mayo Clinic
tiseo128.paul23@mayo.edu
(please remove numbers to email me)

[Tony Hill]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:21:30 GMT, Paul Tiseo
<tiseo128.paul23@mayo.edu> wrote:In article <uid0kvkoho7qurpcpbtn37nsd0163h469c@4ax.com>,rmyers@rustuck.com says... I think AMD knows full well that its long term survival is more tied to competing with Centrino for the mobile/low power market that is growing than it is to competing for a desktop market that is shrinking. Where are your figures for that? Also, what are the relative sizes of these markets and where willthey be in the short- to medium-term? It might be true that the desktopmarket is shrinking and that the mobile market is growing, but thenagain that could be true with the desktop market still always remaininglarger and thus just as or more important a grab for AMD relative to themobile market.

In terms of dollar value in the US, mobile computers already make up a
larger portion of the retail market than desktops. Now, mobile's tend
to sell for more, so desktops make up a larger percentage of unit
sales (it's roughly a 60/40 split at this time). I don't know if this
translates directly to the world market or not, but I would suspect
that it's reasonably close.

Now, there are a few things to remember here. First off, this is just
the retail market. Business users probably still buy more desktops,
and they tend not to buy through retail channels.

Still, there has been a clear trend over the last few years of sales
switching from desktops to mobile computers. I think it's pretty
clear that AMD needs to get into this market if they want to start
earning money, especially given that laptop chips tend to sell for
higher margins than desktop chips.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

[chrisv]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 19:52:30 GMT, Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
In terms of dollar value in the US, mobile computers already make up alarger portion of the retail market than desktops.

Well, I think I read just recently that this "just now" became the
case. In other words, it's pretty close to even, in dollar terms.
Now, mobile's tendto sell for more, so desktops make up a larger percentage of unitsales (it's roughly a 60/40 split at this time).

More like 3:1 in favor of desktops.

[Tony Hill]

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 13:08:50 GMT, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid>
wrote:On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 19:52:30 GMT, Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca>wrote:In terms of dollar value in the US, mobile computers already make up alarger portion of the retail market than desktops.Well, I think I read just recently that this "just now" became thecase. In other words, it's pretty close to even, in dollar terms.

Yup, this was in June of this year.
Now, mobile's tendto sell for more, so desktops make up a larger percentage of unitsales (it's roughly a 60/40 split at this time).More like 3:1 in favor of desktops.

It's 60/40 for the retail market according to most reports. How this
translates to the entire CPU market as a whole, I don't know. My
educated guess would put it as being about 2:1 in favor of desktops,
but I haven't seen any official numbers.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

[jack]

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
: David Winter wrote:
:
:: I edit video, and encode MPEG-2. Tell me about Grunt and HT. The
:: hardware encoder DVD-Recorders and hardware CODEC cards look very
:: nice when you have to wait 10 hours for a single video DVD's
:: contents (2hrs 21mins) to render. It's about 4.5:1, which is par -
:: but that's the limits of a P4 1.5 on i845E with 1.5G of PC133.
::
:: I need a major kick-on to make good use of my new A06.
::
:: DW

: Who and what are you responding to? Top posting is VERY confusing to
: everyone but the poster and a huge waste of bandwidth in that top
: posters also =NEVER= bother to snip out the parts of quoted text that
: doesn't apply, too much effort for them.... So now the thread starts
: halfway down the page, goes to the bottom then BACK to the top and
: down to the middle! How is that normal or easy on anyone but yourself?

Amen to that, brother! I tried to convince DW (DimWit) of that in
another thread, but the clueless truly remain that way. I'm lost in
this thread too, and [up to now] found it very interesting and useful.
Friggen top posters!

J.
<snip>

--
--------
The end to "Personal Computing" as we know it is just around the corner.
TCPA will take away ALL rights from you, the consumer. Learn more
about it here: http://www.againsttcpa.com/what-is-tcpa.html and
here: http://www.againsttcpa.com/tcpa-faq-en.html

[Stacey]

jack wrote:

Amen to that, brother! I tried to convince DW (DimWit) of that in another thread, but the clueless truly remain that way. I'm lost in this thread too, and [up to now] found it very interesting and useful. Friggen top posters!

What's funny is this DW (DimWit) bitched at me for wasting their bandwidth!


--

Stacey

[jack]

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
: jack wrote:
:
:: Amen to that, brother! I tried to convince DW (DimWit) of that in
:: another thread, but the clueless truly remain that way. I'm lost in
:: this thread too, and [up to now] found it very interesting and
:: useful. Friggen top posters!
::
:
: What's funny is this DW (DimWit) bitched at me for wasting their
: bandwidth!

LOL! Yeah, I saw that. I love the irony of a top-poster who can't be
bothered to trim the text below bitching about BW waste. I wish this
fellow would buy himself a clue.

J.

[Stacey]

Alan wrote:
I will. Many years ago I only supported Intel. Then I had a problem with a prefetch chip on an Intel $1400 motherboard that was screwing data on the hardrive. The Intel fix was to supply a Bios that automatically discontinued the prefetch feature. Upon discussing the problem directly with Intel, I was told that the feature was over-rated anyway and that I would most likely not notice the difference. That was a Pentium 90 mb, and I purchase about $5000 worth of computer equipment each year. Since then, not 1 PC is Intel. Amd are faster, more reliable and stand behind their product.

And you've used how many AMD motherboards?

--

Stacey

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <NM%1b.252078$4UE.29179
@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
redwood.marketing@rogers.com says... I will. Many years ago I only supported Intel. Then I had a problem with a prefetch chip on an Intel $1400 motherboard that was screwing data on the hardrive. The Intel fix was to supply a Bios that automatically discontinued the prefetch feature. Upon discussing the problem directly with Intel, I was told that the feature was over-rated anyway and that I would most likely not notice the difference. That was a Pentium 90 mb, and I purchase about $5000 worth of computer equipment each year. Since then, not 1 PC is Intel. Amd are faster, more reliable and stand behind their product.

My guess is that this wasn't a "prefetch chip", rather their PCI
southbridge IDE DMA controller. If so, there was a huge problem
with this that Windows users never saw, simply because Win didn't
multi-task. I had the same problem with an SiS chipset. Yes,
they stole the design from Intel, right down to the flaw. By the way, I have had 1 AMD processor go bad (as I relocated it to another machine), I called AMD as it was almost one year old. They sent a replacement the next day. My choice is AMD.

Mine too, well sorta. ;-) ...but for somewhat different reasons.

--
Keith