AMD vs. Intel: Refuting Historical Inaccuracies - Page 5

Last message on previous page:

I've been over there following a live thread and have seen posts disappear without the poster being banned and having seen said deleted post a few minuets prior I know that it just didn't fit in with the ANDzone collective opinion.

That is a load of BS keith. Inflammatory over at that site means anything that actually says Intel's name. You would have to say spintel. Or disagreeing with them zealots. If they banned for the reason's you stated then 90 percent of them AMD tools would be banned. But since they do it in defense of the AMD cult its all good. Those forums are joke.

Okay... i forgot that the 9900 was 2.6Ghz. And the 9600 was 2.3Ghz.

So let's review the figures you gave again. Yep: basically that didn't matter; two results are still tied.


92@2.3 or 99@2.6 versus 104@2.4 == A tied score (Pushing my limit but it's close enough to not matter. But it's within 10% that's good enough.)
313@2.3 or 285@2.6 versus 301@2.4 == another tied score.

Perhaps. But if that happened was it the opinion that caused it or was it being off topic? And if it was on-topic was the poster actually not being inflammatory?

The bottom line is that the people I've seen banned from that forum deserved to be banned.

Demanding games have become rare.
Gfx cards have exceded the needs/demands from games as of late.
The next few gens of gfx cards and IGPs will expand exponentually in ability, with fusion and process, HKMG etc.
Itll be soon that the IGP doesnt matter will no longer be true, especially as we move more and more to mobile.
If Intel stays with their current IGPs, theyll lose, which is to my point, and why LRB is so important to Intel going forwards, as the alternatives will leave them in the dust without it

Truth? What you quote as being the "truth" is nothing more than spinning information you deem to have a negative effect on your favorite company "AMD" into something of a more positive fashion. It is a tactic employed in politics these days but had it's beginnings in corporate communications (The Medium is the Message: meaning that the form of a medium embeds itself in the message, creating a symbiotic relationship by which the medium influences how the message is perceived).

The way I laid out the claims was and is from a historically accurate time line of events. What you're attempting to do is counter the facts (historical evidence) by claiming that the evidence itself means nothing due to reasons A, B, C.

This could be acceptable if the reasons given were reasonable (which they aren't). To give you one example you give the reason:

"Let me repeat the little truth that is making your head crazy: The company that successfully implements a technology is actually more innovative than a company that invents it and doesn't use it."

This reason is a blatant red herring/fallacious argument since the Company (Intel) did successfully implement a technology (Integrate Memory Controller) into a product (i386SL/i486SL). So by your own definition since Intel did create the technology and implement it on the x86 architecture therefore by your own definition Intel did innovate (therefore your entire post was a waste of xxx characters) or are you now going to change the argument in an attempt to convince us all otherwise (an argument which plays into your own perceptions of reality).

As far as the AMDZone debate, I was creaming their pants... so much so that an admin stepped in and removed all of my posts (the posts were respectful btw). You can follow it all here: http://forum.****/general-chat-are [...] dzone.html

Again you're making false claims in an attempt to discredit me and in doing so are discrediting yourself in the eyes of THG readers. I'm sticking to the facts (evidence). I am in no way "spinning" it in anyone's favor.

PS. I'm no Intel Fanboi.

DING.

100% blind obedience is the only way to keep an account at AMDZone. I love how they come over here and lecture us about being biased when you can't even have a dissenting opinion without being banned there.

The good ol 9900 that never came out. The 9600 was the top dog on the block.

http://www.extremetech.com/article [...] 939,00.asp

Q6600 vs Phenom 9900 ES sample. Running at 9600 speeds.

http://img.tomshardware.com/us/200 [...] le_001.png

Black edition 9600.

http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] ,1767.html

How soon the AMDzoners forget. But both of those reviewers where paid by spintel. I forgot that part.

GF = Global Foundries, not Graphics. The switch to GF has taken a lot on top of the huge purchase of ATI thus they don't have the resources to pump out a new stepping every 3-4 months like Intel.

NO!!!! DO NOT MENTION THE FX SERIES!!!!!! IT COMPLETELY DISPROVES ANY POINT!!!!

I find it funny how whenever anyone mentions the FX series of CPUs and when AMDs Athlon 64/X2 series was priced like Intels Core i5/i7 line is they seem to ignore it.

I think it may be that they want to think of AMD as the budget savior and that AMD would never price gouge us....... oh wait:



Well.... AMD Athlon FX-74 same price as a Intels quad core. Over $1K. But AMD is our champion and would never make prices this high!!!!!

People need to remember that AMD is a business. Do they care about you? No. Do they care that you have little money? Well yes but its only so they can take that money.

Oh and the QX6700 was cheaper than the FX-74 setup yet it performed better stock vs stock, clock vs clock and when OCed.

No Intels solution wont be the same as AMDs. But it will bring a cheap, low power alternative for people looking for it. Much like their current IGPs. Then when they have LRB down I am sure they will put that.

What it means is Intel will be on the forefront of a SoC much like they were witn timna (Well for x86 anyways).

Because we all know that if Intel bought nVidia, we all know that the EU would accuse Intel of unfair practices and that they are making it hard for consumer or something to find another reason to fine them over a billion and stuff their pockets.

Intel has been working LRB for a while. It wasn't a last minute idea. If you look at Intel they already make pretty much everything fro a PC sans the disk drive and RAM. It was only a matter of time for them to get into (true) GPUs.

Bingo.

Funniest thing is that this wasn't a AMD vs Intel superiority thread. In fact it was a informative thread posting a lot of facts supporting his point. And I have been to AMDFanzone. Not for the middleman or non AMD lover.

As for Barcy, it was a fialure considering that they had to do a stop ship and recall on their bread and butter server market chips. Sure the desktop chips were safe but unable to clock near Intels top end or even OC. Was it a full failure? No. But it sure as hell wasn't a success.

BTW, if you don't like it here and we are so "biased", evil and so on why do you keep coming back? Its awlays the same. BTW, nice way of pretty much derailing the thread over performance instead of the OP.

I would be pissed too if I made a thread at one site and they didn't like it thus banhammer.

but his post is an interesting one because it also applies here. A lot of those claims go around here a lot. Most of us know about DEC and their Alpha chip. I didn't know Intel owned the IP of Alpha though. That was a new one to me. I know Intel had plenty of production IMC based x86 CPUs.

But a lot of people wont count them because Intel moved to try something else.

Lol......

Thats funny..... Netburst close to K8.......

While I didn't hate my P4 system, I knew that K8 was better. K7 was so-so but K8 was better.

And Phenom was nowhere near close to Core 2 but some people like to tell themselves that to make themselves feel better.

AMD FTW IT TOTALY PWNS INTEL!!!!!

BTW, Elmo don't try vs keith. He will start something then take parts of your post and only go from there. Also he doesn't like to post any sort of links to fatcs because his opinion is right and he is teh PC godz.....

Thus, the ho hum effect.
Point here is, to average Joe, it does matter, as they now have another alternative, if priced right.
This is leading to the good enough argument, which seems fine when refering to IGPs, and could just as easily be transferred to cpus, concerning average Joe at least, and alot of business as well

To them you are since you don't believe their way.

Welcome to the church of AMD. May your evil Intelspirits be banashed so that you may be happy again!!!

Yea I agree. As I said, AMD sat on K8 just improving the steppings until Core 2 came out. Then they worked on K10. It came within 10%. Considering it came after I would expect it to be on par or beat Core 2. In fact I was pretty sure it would.

I was wrong. K10 did not = K8. But there were people who couldn't handle that and thus they believe what they want and every benchmark that shows Intel is a paid by Intel benchmark or because Intel optimizes software for their CPUs which is evil....

Man I can't even begin to care anymore since the same argument gets annoying.

I respectfully disagree.

The IGPs nowadays, although much more powerful than their predecessor, is still a very far way off from the discrete graphics card. And while its true the point where most people can just forgo the discrete graphics card and go complete IGP, I don't believe that point is anywhere near in the next 3~5 years. The market distinction between IGP and discrete GPU is still very clear, because the performance disparity between them is still very large.

Which brings me to my next point: even if Intel's IGP still sucked compared to its competitors, OEMs and consumers are still going to gobble them up. It is still the cheapest solution on the market, and most people couldn't really care less whether they have a horrible IGP or a discrete graphics card. Will they care in the future? Possibly, when they can no longer run Windows' eye candy. But by that time, Intel will again come out with an IGP (that most likely is going to lag behind other companies) that is capable of running it. So its really a non issue.

As for Larabee, I doubt we will see it in the IGP in the next few years. Larabee is still in its prototype phase, and it will take some considerable time to reduce its footprint and power consumption to the level of IGPs. That's like trying to squeeze a 5870 into the size of an IGP. I personally doubt we'll ever see Larabee architecture inside the IGP, but I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Ok... let me get this straight.

So a 9600 at 2.3Ghz, the best AMD could offer at that time, about 5% to 35% slower than Q6600, which has been on the market for more than a year, had no problems keeping up with the it?

Can I really have some of those what you're smoking? Because I could really use them to see your point.

Sounds like you're trashing AMD! Am I getting this right?

So what you're saying is that AMD spent a year trying to catch up to Intel with its "40% better performance across the board" new architecture, and only managed to land about 5%~35% worse than its supposed competition? And you're calling AMD a loser?

OMG!!! KeithLM is cured!! Rejoice!

All right, everyone who doesn't praise Intel every day, doesn't go to Intlechurch and doesn't shout: "OMG PENTIUM II FASTER THAN PHENOM II" is a fanboy to fanboys like you. It seems there is no feedom of speech on THG. I mean, there is, but if you say something against Intel or post your opinion and objective facts against Intel you get flamed.

Let me correct that for you: "Intel did come out with the first IMC. They did implement it into their products but later abandoned it."

That's the "truth"*

You added some statements such as: "Since they abandoned it that means that they were not innovative" which is a matter of opinion but which is also unreasonable. If you come up with a technology and you use it on certain products but not on others then you're not innovating? How does that make sense? And how does one come to that conclusion? I don't see how one can make that jump other then if one already has a predisposition into believing that Company A. is superior to Company B. therefore Company A is above the rules while Company B. must live up to any rules I pull out of my rear end.


*Truth used as a term to signify that the statement complies with the known evidence.

I never said you were an AMDZoner. But I did ask why you keep coming back to THG since not only are we all blind, rabid Intel fanboys but THG is also a bungch of paid Intel schills because according to your own research Phenom is superior and yadda yadda.

Seriously if you don't like it here and every time you seem to argue with someone or twist their original post into something else then why stay?

Then again never mind. You wont ever answer the question.

Actually I never said that but you don't see it the way I do. You have your eyes I have mine. I don't hate AMD, or those who use it. Looking into my next system build for a HTPC so I can DVR HD video of my fave shows and am looking into a Phenom II X3 and 4770 unless ATI makes a AIW again.

My point is that they will see Elmo as a fanboy because he doesn't agree that AMD is god.

My point? AMD is not great. They are a company. They don't care about you as a person, they wont set with you and make you feel better when you mother dies of the cancer evil Intel gave her. They will be just like Intel. They will try to get as much money out of you as they can.

So in the end, either way you go they don't give a crap. They want you money. Some people blindly support either side. Now I do prefer Intel a tad just because every time I look to build a new system for what I spend they turn out to be the best bang for the buck. But does that mean I am a fanboy? No.

Plus I like to argue when I see people spouting their opinions as facts or spinning facts.

Kinda funny how people dispute the i386/i486 as a CPU with a IMC. Just because Intel didn't continue with the IMC in the Pentium. But the i386/i486 with the IMC was a full production CPU given to the masses that who at the time could afford this new awesome mobile computer called a laptop........

The fact that they used it on one product line and then abandoned the technology actually DOES mean something important. To pretend it doesn't mean anything just because you are trying to make a point is ridiculous.

They abandoned the technology. They did not implement it large scale. This is something that happened.

When you abandon something that means you've decided it is not something you will use. You have abandoned it. Disowned it. Realized you have no use for it.

If somebody comes along later and takes that idea and implements it on a large scale it makes you look pathetic for abandoning it. Perhaps we shouldn't use the word "innovative" for the company that implemented it. But we definitely can use the word "pathetic" for the company that abandoned it.

That's not true, Intel did not disown\abandon it. They decided to use another alternative which they felt was better.


Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't know all the gritty details, but hasn't Intel re-implemented this technology in QuickPath?

Can Intel reimplement and abandon something simultaneously?

Also, does not Intel's implementation of the technology provide better results than AMD's implementation in CPU intensive benchmarks?



Not that HOW you get to the result matters much, it's what the result is. Now to be fair, this doesn't mean that AMD's stuff is junk, because for most people the goal isn't to have the fastest processor, the goal is to have something that will meet there needs within a certain budget, and AMD is going to be very sufficient for many people.

No you shouldn't as, according to the definition of the word, that honour goes to Intel.


Innovative adjective = using new methods or ideas

It does not describe taking an old, already tried idea, and running with it.

The ONLY thing keeping Intels IGPs afloat is their cpus, otherwise, theyd be dead.
Cheaper? Thats what Id like to see, as I dont really have a pricing comparison, and would love to see one, as Im thinking they arent competitive to price/perf, and wont be swayed by heresay, if you have links, Id appreciate it.
And, I too disagree with you, as, since the IGPs of nVidia and ATI will have caught up with Intel in process and HKMG, this wont just go to waste.
As we move into a more mobile solution, and as we see more gpu usage in our day to day apps, having a useful and powerful IGP becomes more and more important, and yes, the game has changed.
I know itds early on, but to say 2-3 years nothing goes agianst 2 major releases, plus trends in all directions.
LRB and Fermi both will have huge impacts on DT usage regarding gpgpu type usage over the next 2-3 years, and having all the things Intel currently already has just means an extra gens growth/dev in those IGPs/gpgpus.
The way I see it is, as time goes forwards, Intel doesnt have as much to offer as far as process goes, unlike those IGPs/gpgpus, and the IGPs will only gain a gen or 2 over current Intel solutions.
Thats why I say, its imperative that LRB delivers, and big time, as Intel has basically shut out all other alternatives in this direction, and NEEDS a full platform, regardless of their cpus abilities, and that its imperative that LRB scales extremely well regarding this

Intel did not outright abandon the technology. Intel used the technology across two product lines. Intel stopped using the technology for a many years and are now back to using the technology. So in essence Intel never abandoned it, they just stopped using it for a while until it became something that was needed again.

Intel did the same with Hyperthreading. After the Pentium 4/D series (Netburst) Intel stopped using HT on their desktop product lines (and mobile segment as well). The Core 2 didn't have HT. Intel is once again using HT now with their Core i7 line.

Perhaps the dictionary is a great place for you to start:
innovation [ˌɪnəˈveɪʃən]
n
1. something newly introduced, such as a new method or device
2. the act of innovating
innovational adj
innovationist n

Who "newly" introduced the IMC to the x86 architecture? Intel.

End of debate.

(Unless of course you feel that you're worthy of re-writing a dictionary).

Oh.. you're just so right. I guess it's just wrong to say that they abandoned the technology because they stopped using it for many years. We need another word to describe shelving something and not using it for many years let me think... what was the best word... let me think... Oh yeah... the word "abandoned" fits that description.

You are correct in your original facts. What you are not correct on is the IMPORTANCE or RELEVANCE of those facts.

==============
PLUS something not even mentioned:

What was Intel's original intent? When the IMC was originally designed was it meant to be implemented in all their systems? Was that their goal? Or did they just want to make something that would allow them to add the chipset to the CPU to make manufacturing cheaper because it would be one piece instead of two. It had nothing to do with performance.

So pop quiz: Did they "invent" the IMC as it is implemented now?

not both?

Saying their IMC is superior is something.
I might ask, hows it fair on DDR2?

No.

It's that simple. No.

Intent does not at all have anything to do with the topic at hand. Whether or not Intel's intent was to integrate the memory controller onto the i386SL in an attempt to save space does not at all affect the outcome (that they integrated the memory controller into the CPU die).

It also does not diminish the accomplishment.

Whether the intent was to obtain more performance or save space does not at all have any bearing on the topic(s) at hand. You have completely lost this argument. Go home (AMDZone) and lick your wounds. While you're at it.. send back the best "they" have.

You have failed to actively backup your secondary implied argument.

So now you have started to resort to getting inflammatory because you realize that there is no way you can support that implied argument.

Your first fact is correct. Your implied argument that it is somehow important has failed. It is making you crazy because there is no way for you to make me accept that secondary argument. (Especially when you dance around the issue.)

As I said earlier... this forum is fun in that you guys are completely guilty of the very things that are blamed on AMD Fanboys. But somehow that's okay for you.

Oh WAIT... I forgot you're not a fanboy... you're just "unbiased".

EDIT: PS::: The intent issue IS important to your secondary argument. (Whether you like it or not.)

You are completely out of your league.

What Second argument.. this one?

That's factual. Intel did not abandon the "idea" of an Integrated Memory Controller. How do I know this? Because when Intel was posed the question they replied with this (http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=1455):

This is an acknowledgment that Intel knows they've done it before and continued to do it to this day with their X-scale based products and that they had a project for the desktop named Timna (which would have included an IMC) which they canceled in the late 90s.

In other words, Intel has been using IMCs ever since 1990 across various products. So they did not abandon the technology as you claim. They stopped using it on the x86 architecture for many years and are now using the idea once more (all the while still using it on their X-scale lineup).

Again you lose that argument just like any other argument you've brought forward.

Now please.. enlighten us just as to how Intel's Intent diminishes their accomplishments in this field?

I'm not a fanboi my friend.. you are the fanboi (you admitted as much yourself and you frequent AMDZone). You simply disagree with the evidence I am providing which does not favor AMD but favors Intel therefore you assume I have ulterior motives (which is simply an attempt at reflecting your own personal imperfections onto someone else).

Anonymous wrote:

1-2-2005

Which RAM do you'se guys suggest? Stability problem since newborn. OCZ DDR333 problem? Systym freezes and have to hold in power button, I found out. This is random, but is getting on my nervous. Any fix this.

DFI S939 NF4
OCZ Gold 400 512 x 2 (megagits)
Antec 550w

Let me know if further info is needed. I think I have boarding pass dual channel control. Hello. Goodbye.