Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Heres a thought........




  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    323

    Default

    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..........
    Here are my specs:
    System Specs: ATX generic case with Antec 550 watt power supply. ASUS A7N8X Deluxe Motherboard. Western Digital 7,200 RPM 40 gig IDE Hard Drive.(NTFS- file system) AMD Athlon XP 2600 processor.(standard fan and heatsink-Thoroughbred Core-standard speed-NO OVERCLOCK) 1 gig of Samsung DDRAM(PC 2700- 333 mhz....2-512mb sticks running in dual channel mode).Ati Radeon 8x 9600 XT (8x is enabled on motherboard). Soundblaster Audigy 2 sound card. Motorola sb 5100 cable modem (Insight Communications-Cable Connection) BenQ 16x DVD- RECORDER.(records -R/-RW or +R/+RW and CD-R formats) LG 52x32x52 CD Burner. Zip 100 internal drive and a generic 3.5 floppy drive. Windows XP Professional Operating System. I also have a HP Deskjet 3520 inkjet printer and a KDS X Flat 17 inch CRT monitor.

  2. #2

    Default

    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 :?:

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    323

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Neil2094
    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?
    Here are my specs:
    System Specs: ATX generic case with Antec 550 watt power supply. ASUS A7N8X Deluxe Motherboard. Western Digital 7,200 RPM 40 gig IDE Hard Drive.(NTFS- file system) AMD Athlon XP 2600 processor.(standard fan and heatsink-Thoroughbred Core-standard speed-NO OVERCLOCK) 1 gig of Samsung DDRAM(PC 2700- 333 mhz....2-512mb sticks running in dual channel mode).Ati Radeon 8x 9600 XT (8x is enabled on motherboard). Soundblaster Audigy 2 sound card. Motorola sb 5100 cable modem (Insight Communications-Cable Connection) BenQ 16x DVD- RECORDER.(records -R/-RW or +R/+RW and CD-R formats) LG 52x32x52 CD Burner. Zip 100 internal drive and a generic 3.5 floppy drive. Windows XP Professional Operating System. I also have a HP Deskjet 3520 inkjet printer and a KDS X Flat 17 inch CRT monitor.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    346

    Default

    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:

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    268

    Default

    If this were gonna happen, i would buy!
    SYX -=AMD Powered=-
    AMD 1800+ @ 1880Mhz on A7S333 , 250 Meg DDR 333 Platinum @2-2-2-6
    Asus TNT 2 32 meg (128) , 250W ATX, 200W AT (same case)
    Steel automotive intake fan (see avatar) , 3X40mm exaust fans in the back

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    214

    Default

    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.
    ASUS A7N8X Deluxe, Athlon Barton 2500+ with SLK-800 and 4800rpm 80mm fan, ATi 9700Pro(AIW), Dual 256MB Corsair XMS 3200c. Seagate Barracuda SATA. 200MHz fsb with 11X multiplier, RAM latency: 2,2,2,5

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,790

    Default

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

    FX5900 - 3DMark2001 [20,566] - 3DMark2003 [7,281] - Aquamark3 [56,694]
    Ti4400 - 3DMark2001 [16,028]

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 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...
    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.
    ASUS A7N8X Deluxe, Athlon Barton 2500+ with SLK-800 and 4800rpm 80mm fan, ATi 9700Pro(AIW), Dual 256MB Corsair XMS 3200c. Seagate Barracuda SATA. 200MHz fsb with 11X multiplier, RAM latency: 2,2,2,5

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Fincastle, IN, USA
    Posts
    3,776

    Default

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

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    3,141

    Default

    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..


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •