Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 64

Thread: Intel vs. AMD - The Road Ahead




  1. #41
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Tweak
    Pretty much spot on there from what I've seen and heard.
    *nudge* . . you can tell us. ;)

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered
    Some arguments about the article:

    -the author did mention that the Barton will have 512k l2 cache and missed completely on the fact the new AMD roadmap says that the Barton will have 333Mhz FSB, and that the Hammer is speculated to have 800 MHz or so.
    Ummm both those points are not confirmed, and at this point in time alot of rumours/speculation is pointing to the Barton being a 266mhz FSB part and dropping SOI as it originally was ment to have.

    [B]
    -now correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't RDRAM running to take full use of the P4 FSB and so there weren't any memory bottlenecks and if the you compared an Athlon to a P4 using RDRAM at the same clock the Athlon would win hands down.
    Actually a RDRAM platform coupled with a P4 is pretty much to best platform (for desktop) you can get to date. Obviously the constraint has always been the high cost due to RDRAM. If you look at reviews such as Toms P4 2.4Ghz vs AXP 2100+ you'll see he uses a RAMBUS platform as this shows the P4 in the best light (See: http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q...4_2400-06.html)

    [B]
    -now since the P4 has such a deep pipeline and it has to do more to process anything, I think that any increase in the FSB will be a bit useless since you are getting the data in there fast but the deep pipelines are stalling everything up.
    Arrrrh, if you refer to the review above I posted you'll actually see Tom tests systems running at 533mhz FSB and that it does have a noticable performance increase over the 400mhz FSB systems (~10% increase from what I can tell). One thing to point out is the DDR systems for these new chipsets are still going to constraint the performance in my view. They are only able to supply a Max Mem bandwidth of 2.1 GB/S as rather than the 4.2 GB/s the RAMBUS chipset can supply (See: http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=45000318). Ultimately I feel Asher has the inside scoop on things and this is reason as to why he raised the Dual Channel DDR issue (which Intel should be releasing a part for by the end of the year from all reports)

    [B]
    -my comment: did Intel have anything to do with the article? Because I have doubt that your article wasn't paid. ;)
    I doubt it very much, more likely Asher has some more data on the parts coming out soon than we do, Tom's review that I've referred to confirms much of what Asher said. While I don't have the same sediments as the Article (feeling it too short sighted for my liking) it is just one persons view based on the current situation - keep this in mind.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,910

    Default

    Ever see TV channels beat up a story before the actual show is aired. I think this is a beat up by TT for an article on the Intel proc. The trouble is, because of the "lite" biased nature of the original article, either by design or incompetence, how could you rely on another one? Anyway, playing the political game, the original article, flawed as it is, will stay, and no matter what is said here, Mr Tweak will ignore it. The damage or plug has been made, second doesn't count.

    This site has just lost me as a client, I couldn't trust another article to be unbiased or without favour.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    4,308

    Default

    Firstly I won't be ignoring it as you say, I've been keeping an active eye on this thread.

    The article was based purely on facts, if you have a hard time dealing with that due to your possible alliances with AMD or maybe you are just an AMD fan that's really something you are going to have to deal with.

    The fact remains, this article was based on facts. Not mentioning that much about the Hammer does not mean this article is biased, it just means there is little information about it to report on.
    Cameron "Mr.Tweak" Wilmot
    Managing Director
    Tweak Town Pty Ltd

  5. #45
    Beefy Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered
    This site has just lost me as a client, I couldn't trust another article to be unbiased or without favour.
    Just lost you as a client? Couldn't have been much of one to begin with.... You haven't registered, and if you'd been a regular you would have appreciated the other articles from here and not be turned off by one you disagree with...

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    19

    Default

    "The article was based purely on facts, if you have a hard time dealing with that due to your possible alliances with AMD or maybe you are just an AMD fan that's really something you are going to have to deal with"

    Ummm...not to pick nits here Cam, but the article was based on "Roadmaps", not really facts...I think the problem most are having is that you are accepting Intel's roadmap as a given, and AMD's as more speculative (just the impression I have). I assume this is because you have the 533 FSB parts in hand, but you haven't personally seen the Hammers (I have, they ROCK!). I am also assuming that Intel is putting out that they are "releasing" this in May (thanks for the date Molman!), but (as we all know) there is a BIG difference between a "release" and finding them for sale (I'm thinking of the 1 GHz and 1.13 GHz Coppermine paper launches, not to mention RDRAM boards and the like...).

    "Ummm both those points are not confirmed, and at this point in time alot of rumours/speculation is pointing to the Barton being a 266mhz FSB part and dropping SOI as it originally was ment to have"

    Au contraire Monsieur Molman! :-)
    http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/V...04_608,00.html

    "Actually a RDRAM platform coupled with a P4 is pretty much to best platform (for desktop) you can get to date"

    Ummm... a slight modification here RDRAM+a P4 2.4 GHz...below that speed and it starts at a draw and sways heavily towards AMD as speeds decline.

    "For those that say the article is 'lacking' because it does not address hammer are also missing the point that the article does not address future intel chips"

    I thought it did! Which chips are you referring to?

    Cheers,
    Charles

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    19

    Default

    Woops...didn't read Molman's post correctly... They have indeed dropped SOI for Barton. It will be 512k L2 .13u Athlon. The "word" is that they needed all the SOI wafers they could get for Hammer (which is why most speculate a VERY early launch for Clawhammer...possibly as early as September).
    Sorry Molman...

    Cheers,
    Charles

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by viditor
    Woops...didn't read Molman's post correctly... They have indeed dropped SOI for Barton. It will be 512k L2 .13u Athlon. The "word" is that they needed all the SOI wafers they could get for Hammer (which is why most speculate a VERY early launch for Clawhammer...possibly as early as September).
    Sorry Molman...

    Cheers,
    Charles
    no problem :)

    Edit: viditor, may I ask where you got to preview Hammer? . . curious as I live in Syd too. . .

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    19

    Default

    "viditor, may I ask where you got to preview Hammer?"

    In LA...I'm a transplanted Yank from LA. My career is in television (I train production and post-production people on new equipment) but my income is from the US shares market (I semi-retired 3 years ago from TV). I also help a friend out in his computer shop...
    One of the perks you get working on cutting edge TV gear is being allowed to see systems during the design phase (I'm under NDA as well, but I believe I can tell you the Hammer Rocks without comprimising myself...grin). I get called in to help guide the designers on what functions are most suitable...(notice I scrupulously avoided the word "Consultant"...shiver)

    Cheers,
    Charles

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,910

    Default

    quote:
    Actually a RDRAM platform coupled with a P4 is pretty much to best platform (for desktop) you can get to date. Obviously the constraint has always been the high cost due to RDRAM. If you look at reviews such as Toms P4 2.4Ghz vs AXP 2100+ you'll see he uses a RAMBUS platform as this shows the P4 in the best light (See: http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/02...p4_2400-06.html)

    sorry but i think that you didn't understand me. I said clock for clock as in a 1.7Ghz P4 and 1.7Ghz Athlon not a rating like 2100+ and compare it to 2.4Ghz P4. if the Athlon was running at the same clock as a P4 it would make it burn. so I think that what I said is still valid.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast

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
  •