Heres a thought........

[webe3]

I always wondered why AMD does not come out with a seperate chipset that has the SAME mhz as the newest Intel chips?? They could probably charge more for this chip, as it would probably cost more to produce. Say, for example, AMD had a chip that was the same mhz as the newest Intel which right now I believe is 3.06 mhz....can you imagine if an AMD chip had that kind of horsepower under the hood?? It would completely BLOW AWAY Intel hands down! Because AMD has had experience with doing more with less, or to put it another way, look at the 3200 which has a core speed of 2.2 ghz....NOW...Imagine if that chip had a 3.6 ghz core under the hood! I imagine you could EASILY overclock it to 4 mhz!

Intel would REALLY have a hard time catching up then, because they would match them equally when it comes to clock speed, yet STILL have the advantage by making their chip go further than Intel could ever push their chip! Because they have always had their chipsets at LESS mhz than intels and still beat them at their own game! A lot of people on this board would say that it would push up the price of the chips, but if they marketed to a crowd of "enthusiasts", like the vid card dealers do, they should be able to keep their share of regular users with the regular chips they make and add to their market with the "enthusiast" crowd! Then , they could make chips like vid cards are made- low end, mid range, and high end! High end though being the same mhz as intel with overclockability! Just a thought..........

[Neil2094]

A lot of people on this board would say that it would push up the price of the chips, but if they marketed to a crowd of "enthusiasts",

Only problem is that the enthusiasts may not generate enough money for it the chip to be cost effective. I guess that maybe AMD have always made their chips the way they do and maybe are unwilling to change it as its proving to be succesful :?:

[webe3]

Only problem is that the enthusiasts may not generate enough money for it the chip to be cost effective. I guess that maybe AMD have always made their chips the way they do and maybe are unwilling to change it as its proving to be succesful :?:

True....but my whole point was that they might gain a market crowd added to what they already have, that is IF as you say, there are enough "enthusiasts" to cover the costs. Mabye they have already looked into this and decided against it. who knows?

[theyneverknew]

AS much as that would be awesome to have an AMD chip running at the same freq's as P4's do its not happening because of AMD's core architecture which is designed to run at lower speeds but do more per clock cycle, whereas Intel specifically designed the P4 to do less work per clock cycle so that it could reach the very high clock speeds that its at :cheers:

[syx]

If this were gonna happen, i would buy!

[Woody_87th]

I think theyneverknew said it best. Intel makes sacrifices to run at those speeds. They are obsessed with MHz and meeting Moore's law. They would go so far as to market a slower and inferior CPU just to get the clock cycles up.

I think AMD was wise to abandon Intel's mentality of building core speed CPUs and focus on building faster CPUs that are more efficient.

[Soulburner]

Well you can't deny the fact that they know what they are doing, as they are at the top of the performance ladder...

[Woody_87th]

Well you can't deny the fact that they know what they are doing, as they are at the top of the performance ladder...

I wouldn't go so far as to say they are at the top of the performance ladder. They probably will be when the Athlon 64 is released. Not really sure what you mean by "performance ladder" though.

I think Pentiums are still faster at things like MP3 encoding and similar clock cycle dependant tasks where core frequency is critical.

My guess is AMD can't really build a reliable 3GHz CPU they can sell for a reasonable price that is based on the current Athlon XP design. But it sure would be a kick ass CPU! :D It's up to us to clock them.

[amd_man2005]

I dont thinks thats true of MP3 encoding, at least on songs anyway, as I encode 4mb in 15seconds or less.

[The__tweaker]

Personally I leave all multimedia editing to Intel, they have a big advantage over the XP line due to SSE2. This is in fact very true as I've seen it myself on my machines..

This may change when the 64 Bits procs comes though..