AMD Appreciation thread!!
Forum CPU & Components : CPUs - AMD Appreciation thread!!
yeah, I too remember, just some not as fondly as you... ahh, the heat, low overclocks, paper launches, exaggerated specific benches and oh yeah, the instability... now I remember... 
Sorry to say i had intel all my life, but i have seen the light 
just waiting on the new stuff to be released, I will need help on motherboards later, cause i dont have a clue on which 1 is good or not.
I have to say thanks to Intel for my Core 2 Duo! 
Love AMD too here. First PC was a Intel, although that was the only cpu back in those days. Intel 486, next pc was a intel celeron 600Mhz one in 1998 , but my dad sold that and got us an AMD, performance was way better. From then on I've stuck to amd, went to athlon xp, athlon 64, athlon x2. and just today, i recieved a x2 4600 ;D because my 4200 broke and they didnt have any in stock. Gonna upgrade to AM2 though, then maybe when AM3 chips come out i can use one . as for intel, yea they did suck all the way from 2000 - mid 2006, but now they are on top. also their first core duo cpu's sucked. thats why its called core 2 duo, because it took them 2 times to make it better 
they seem to have mastered it, but now as core 2 duo comes to its 1 year mark almost i wouldnt want to buy it.
I probably shouldn't bother correcting you because you're an uninformed fanboy, but...
| Quote : as for intel, yea they did suck all the way from 2000 - mid 2006 |
No they didn't. The Pentium 4 Northwood was a pretty decent chip. If I recall correctly the top Northwood chips were similar to the Athlon XP top chips, maybe a little quicker, depending on the application.
| Quote : also their first core duo cpu's sucked. thats why its called core 2 duo, because it took them 2 times to make it better |
No, the Core Duo was very good, and not a whole lot slower than the Core 2 Duo most of the time. Even the Pentium M, which came before the Core Duo, was about the equivalent of the AMD Turion. The Core Duo was definitely already superior to the Turion.
| Quote : I probably shouldn't bother correcting you because you're an uninformed fanboy, but...
|
No they didn't. The Pentium 4 Northwood was a pretty decent chip. If I recall correctly the top Northwood chips were similar to the Athlon XP top chips, maybe a little quicker, depending on the application.
| Quote : also their first core duo cpu's sucked. thats why its called core 2 duo, because it took them 2 times to make it better |
No, the Core Duo was very good, and not a whole lot slower than the Core 2 Duo most of the time. Even the Pentium M, which came before the Core Duo, was about the equivalent of the AMD Turion. The Core Duo was definitely already superior to the Turion.
well amd were on top most of the time 2000 - mid 2006 then
as for core duo, im mistaken 
but still amd's were much better with the dual core before the c2d
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7-6389077-1.html
and yes you can say im a fanboy, because i have been supporting amd for most of the time, but..
if c2d had real quad core and supported hyperthreading let me assure you i would be with them right now. right now the jump from a 4600 x2 to a c2d doesn't look like id gain anything, except ddr2 and minor performance like, oo i can calculate pi in 16 seconds.
ahhh... my first PC, a Compaq with a 233 K6-2.
| Quote : Love AMD too here. First PC was a Intel, although that was the only cpu back in those days. Intel 486, next pc was a intel celeron 600Mhz one in 1998 |
Just for the people with difficulty remembering, here is the link to Toms CPU charts for 2004.
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2004.html
If you pick a P4 versus any of the Athlon XP's with the performance rating that matches the P4 clockspeed, you'll see that the P4 beats the Athlon XP in nearly everything. It isn't until you match the A64 with the P4 that the P4 gets it's a$$ handed to it. It seems to be that every AMD fanboy wishes to re-write the history previous to the A64, since the A64 kicked a$$ for x number of years, they must have did so before the A64 too. Heck why not say that Intel never made a good processor ever. This is the attitude that gets me. People get programmed into thinking in only one way (and it only took a few years of AMD superiority to do it). If anything AMD fans should be leery of narrow minded thinking with the whole clockspeed myth, that's why AMD created the performance index. What I'm saying is before you make blanket statements, you need to go back to the facts. If you can't remember that far back then you ought to stay silent.
By the way not all this was for you moogles, its for all fanboys on both sides of the fence. Intel fanboys have their day of reckoning coming too, Intel won't stay on top forever (if AMD hasn't dug themselves into a hole they can't get out of). I would rather see everyone be a performance whore, whoever has the best price/performance/power takes the market share, and the other gets the budget market.
| Quote : Love AMD too here. First PC was a Intel, although that was the only cpu back in those days. Intel 486, next pc was a intel celeron 600Mhz one in 1998 |
Just for the people with difficulty remembering, here is the link to Toms CPU charts for 2004.
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2004.html
If you pick a P4 versus any of the Athlon XP's with the performance rating that matches the P4 clockspeed, you'll see that the P4 beats the Athlon XP in nearly everything. It isn't until you match the A64 with the P4 that the P4 gets it's a$$ handed to it. It seems to be that every AMD fanboy wishes to re-write the history previous to the A64, since the A64 kicked a$$ for x number of years, they must have did so before the A64 too. Heck why not say that Intel never made a good processor ever. This is the attitude that gets me. People get programmed into thinking in only one way (and it only took a few years of AMD superiority to do it). If anything AMD fans should be leery of narrow minded thinking with the whole clockspeed myth, that's why AMD created the performance index. What I'm saying is before you make blanket statements, you need to go back to the facts. If you can't remember that far back then you ought to stay silent.
By the way not all this was for you moogles, its for all fanboys on both sides of the fence. Intel fanboys have their day of reckoning coming too, Intel won't stay on top forever (if AMD hasn't dug themselves into a hole they can't get out of). I would rather see everyone be a performance whore, whoever has the best price/performance/power takes the market share, and the other gets the budget market.
What I remember most about the pre-64 days was the PII, PIII, and P4's.
Clock speeds going up 200mhz at a time every 3 months and charging a hefty premium for each little "bump". Even though Intel could have leapfrogged over several of these "improvements" and released products that had much bigger performance gains each step of the way. But business is business, and this is how they milked the consumer for every penny they could until AMD finally offered something that did what Intel could/should have done, leapfrogged past everything else available by a good margin. That is what has soured me, those mid to later Pentium days when Intel had everything in their pocket, and just sit back raking in the cash. If I was CEO of Intel, hell I'd have done the same thing. But as a consumer, it really turned me off.
sorry that i have a narrow minded view of intel , but the reason i chose amd over the years is due to the power/price/heat. only now it's changed to power/heat/price/overclockability. and yes the pentium does beat the athlon on most of those, but y'see I a gamer only look at one thing, games. it's up to intel/amd to decide what do we focus on the gaming market or the big corporation market. ie make the cpu better for video editing and such or better for games. since you know alot, please tell me the lets say counterpart for each cpu,
AMD Intel
Sempron Celeron
Turion Core Duo
Athlon Pentium
Athlon 64 Pentium 4
Athlon X2 Pentium 4 EE? Unsure
Athlon X2 Core 2 Duo
Agena Penryn
i'm pretty sure the cpu before core 2 duo was meant to be competing against the x2's so core 2 duo has no counterpart except for the latest x2's?
add more that i dont know of. although i may be a amd fanboy, i still read up on all new tech. so if i was asked to build a c2d i'd know what to get, in terms of overclocking.
If only your thread would have said "Thank You AMD for your contributions to the world of Computers." and/or "Thank you for making the CPU market competitive." But instead you had to say:
| Quote : Now we have Intel's Core 2 Duo, but too be honest they are not all that good. |
Now that my friend is just flame bait. 
| Quote : If only your thread would have said "Thank You AMD for your contributions to the world of Computers." and/or "Thank you for making the CPU market competitive." But instead you had to say:
|
Now that my friend is just flame bait.
Which if he believes that, kinda makes ya wonder how little he thinks of AMD...
No wonder you dont post on main account, FlyingFlower, since I doubt you posted only once here Why? Because too many Intel fanboys here, and posting AMD appreciation thread on THG is the same as posting intel prasing thread in AMDzone
Back on topic, I thank AMD for concurency, otherwise we would be using P3/4 now and paying 600$ for it Intel is more buly than AMD simply because it can, AMD would do the same in Intels place, same in every other area, notable example Microsoft, etc.
| Quote : I thought it would be a great idea to create a AMD appreciation thread because of all the great CPU’s they have provided us with. This is a discussion about AMD, so could Intel fan boys please not reply because they keep creating flame wars….thank you.
|
Sounds like you don't need any help creating a flame war. Maybe that's what you intended, or maybe you really are such an idiot that you actually believe what you posted. Either way, you're a waste of bandwidth, go to AMDZone where you can join the rest of the fanboys who preach to one another how good AMD is.
This is a growing trend that a lot of people have screwed up. It's exactly as you said. AMD had about a 2 year lead and even then the margin of the lead wasn't gigantic. Since both companies have been in business for about 35 years, you can say that Intel has had 33 years of leading and AMD has had 2 years (I know I'm oversimplifying here, but it makes a point...at most AMD has had 5 years of leadership out of 35)
| Quote : yeah, I too remember, just some not as fondly as you... ahh, the heat, low overclocks, paper launches, exaggerated specific benches and oh yeah, the instability... now I remember... |
Id'not be so rude with AMD's performance, even because, the memories of you that I highlighted, are fresher from Intel's Prescotts than the almost forgotten K7 you are referring .
| Quote : sorry that i have a narrow minded view of intel |
Well on the CPU chart, you'll see quite a few games used as benchmarks, and Intel wins most of them if not all under the guidelines I used.
As for the chart, you're pretty much spot on, here is how I see it:
AMD Intel
Duron/Sempron Celeron
Turion Core Duo
K6-X Pentium, Pentium Pro (with or without MMX)
Athlon Pentium II,III
Athlon XP Pentium 4 (Willamette, Northwood)
Athlon 64 Pentium 4 (Northwood, Prescott, Presler)
Athlon FX Pentium 4 EE (this was a particular stupid idea)
Athlon X2 Pentium 4 D
Athlon X2/FX Core 2 Duo (sorry if that's all you got that's what we have to stack it up against)
Agena Penryn
That's pretty close without getting too far into details. Of course you may have Nehelam competing with Agena depending on how long Agena is around. Seems to me Intel is trying to be the rolling stone, they don't want to be caught sleeping again. It's hard to be the sleeping king who wakes to find the fool stole his crown.
| Quote : This is a growing trend that a lot of people have screwed up. It's exactly as you said. AMD had about a 2 year lead and even then the margin of the lead wasn't gigantic. Since both companies have been in business for about 35 years, you can say that Intel has had 33 years of leading and AMD has had 2 years (I know I'm oversimplifying here, but it makes a point...at most AMD has had 5 years of leadership out of 35) |
5 years out of 35 is 'good enough' to show it's possible to beat Intel.
| Quote : This is a growing trend that a lot of people have screwed up. It's exactly as you said. AMD had about a 2 year lead and even then the margin of the lead wasn't gigantic. Since both companies have been in business for about 35 years, you can say that Intel has had 33 years of leading and AMD has had 2 years (I know I'm oversimplifying here, but it makes a point...at most AMD has had 5 years of leadership out of 35) |
5 years out of 35 is 'good enough' to show it's possible to beat Intel.
No one in their right mind would argue that AMD didn't have Intel beat. All I said (which is what enewman was agreeing with) is that to most AMD fanboys, those few years erased all the years that Intel lead, making blanket statements like "AMD has always been better".
Another point is that at no other time during this performance war was the delta between Intel and AMD as huge as it was in the A64 vs P4 days and the C2D vs. X2/FX days. Before these two points in history, the performance delta held to around 10%, now we see 25% and higher. If this continues (the huge leaps ahead), in 5 years time we'll be using computers with CPU's 100% (not times) faster than the ones we're using today.
Wow!
| Quote : I thought it would be a great idea to create a AMD appreciation thread because of all the great CPU’s they have provided us with. This is a discussion about AMD, so could Intel fan boys please not reply because they keep creating flame wars….thank you.
|
Revision..."I created this thread to honour our best friend...AMD. Please don't reply if you like Intel, because we want to bash Intel, without any legitimate arguments defending them. You Intel fanboys just create flame-wars....now where was i.....Intel sucks AMD's nuts."
You're a hypocrytical dufus, who's like a rabid skunk that's been cornered. "Leave me alone, or i'll turn around and spray my stink at you". :x
Please mind
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months.
If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.
