[Maxvla]

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030521/index.html

intel is running away leaving your brand new xp3200 behind even a 2.4b in some tests.

these 800fsb processors are literally untouched through the whole test. i can't remember a single test where the 3.0c was not first.

i'm all about competition. we intel users depend on amd to keep it close so prices stay somewhat affordable.

so... AMD... what do you have up your sleeve? anything?

[SiliconX]

Athlon64 i'm guessing might close the gap a bit

[Silver]

I'm on hold right now. Waiting to see what is going to happen with AMD's new processor/mobo. Tis shameful but if nothing shows up in the next few months I ....I .......I........nawwwww....maybe.................. ..............

I have stood by them and used pretty much every trick I can think of but just can't get a Vdub to beat a Hemi.

Lest anyone worry, I have yet to jump ship.

[Maxvla]

Originally posted by Silver
I'm on hold right now. Waiting to see what is going to happen with AMD's new processor/mobo. Tis shameful but if nothing shows up in the next few months I ....I .......I........nawwwww....maybe.................. ..............

The dark side is calling for you Silver

I'd love to see that Silver magic on a p4 system.

[AZN]

if and when u switch silver, all u will be saying is y didnt i do this earlier

[HaTE]

i sure hope the athlon64 can catch up, i would hate to see AMD have to pull out of the cpu market:/

[Maxvla]

Originally posted by HaTE
i sure hope the athlon64 can catch up, i would hate to see AMD have to pull out of the cpu market:/

same here. that would mean intel prices would probly go up at least double and there would be very little reason for them to make faster chips.

[dropadrop]

Looking at how closely amd and ibm seem to be doing R&D these days, I don't see amd dieing away quite yet! One thing intel managed to do with their C series of processors was to make amd's pr-ratings seem quite ridiculous...

The foremost change is that AMD no longer really has a chip R&D facility. They have closed their R&D facility and split up the engineers. The flash and memory people have been split off and moved to parts unknown. The CPU team has been moved to IBM's facility in New York, and will work jointly with IBM. How much of IBM's future direction is dictated by AMD is still unknown. This is definitely a net gain for AMD, and probably a gain for IBM as well. All future chip fabrication technologies are basically the same for both companies. At the Opteron launch Hector Ruiz hinted at this, but he was vastly understating the depth of the ties.

from: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9552

[OC Detective]

Well I am not losing any sleep over one set of benchmarks especially conducted by Tom's. Have a look at the link I am posting on this matter regarding benchmarking and how Intel (and AMD for that matter) can manipulate them and where AMD does stand against Intel.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9445

[penetrecion]

Benchmarks are just for fun...

Don't live your life by them. You can get completely different results by using a different benchmark program. In one program or setup Intel kills AMD but throw in a different program and setup and suddenly that AMD is in front.

I don't waste my time with benchmarks except as a reference to see if the changes I just made to my PC actually made a difference. I mean, really, you got people out there taking out all the programs running in the background, defragmenting their HDD just before running the program, etc, etc... and for what? A pointless number and line graph. Sure your system ran great after a fresh reformat of your HDD but what about playing that game with MBM running in the background or doing what working people want out of a system... multi-tasking.

I say too much people waste too much time benching their system and too little time USING their PC!

You can have your high end PC running 3.4 GHz... I am perfectly content with my 'cheap' system running at 1.8 GHz. I fyou got the money to blow, power to ya but I have a house to invest in... not a computer to invest in that will be worth less than half of what I spent for it in less than a year.

Oh, and Tom's Hardware is just another website, there are plenty of them and they all have their OWN OPINION just like him.

[big_cochino]

Penetrecion wrote:

> In one program or setup Intel kills AMD but throw in a different
> program and setup and suddenly that AMD is in front.


Sorry Penetrecion......... Maxvia is correct !

Not in one benchmark, not ONE, does the new AMD xp3200
come up to even 92% of the 800FSB C 3.0 Intel processor's
performance.

Please post a link showing ANY (reputable) test backing-up
your assertion, that ANY AMD cpu is as fast as the new 800FSB
C 3.0.

[Gautam]

AMD's got plenty of advances in store that will bring them to about the same level as Intel, or above. I don't know what's up with the new Bartons. Their PR ratings are overshot by too much of a degree. Intel is going to have the upper hand until the Clawhammer comes out. Don't forget that the Athlon 64 will have an 800mhz front side bus, and that Intel isn't planning on having anything higher either. Unfortunately for AMD, at about the point that they release the Clawhammer, Intel will release the Prescott, the first mainstream processor based on a .09 micron process. However, one thing that everyone seems to fail to take into account is that AMD will have migrated to 64-bit processing entirely by the end of this year. Intel has strongly stood their ground with 32-bit only. This allows for a maximum of "only" 4 GB of memory, however that amount will be commonplace very quickly. AMD's will also be using the 64-bit PCI Express standard, allowing for huge bandwidth, mainly useful with GPU's. Intel will still have 8X or 16X AGP, correct me if I'm wrong. I must admit, lately, It's rather depressing to go to the Intel forums here to see people with 300mhz fsbs, while I must get along with my measly 220 . However, there isn't really much software out that needs remotely this much performance, so all that's left for the AMD vs. Intel arguements are benchmarks. (Hah! You get ONLY 21000 3dmarks!?!?!?!; I just broke 24000!!!!!) With that said, I can see why AMD doesn't care too much as of now. Joe Sixpack can easily be awed by 3400+ PR ratings, and they have a tiny market share as it is, which won't go up or down for a while.

[JungleMan]

Sure, Intel's 2.4C and their $200 Canterwood mobos are winning now...but this summer or fall, AMD will have A64, which ought to beat the P4s to a pulp (including whatever Intel comes out with from now on)

Me? I'm not worried in the least about AMD. I'll take my $60 XP1700 at above 2.45Ghz thank you very much, and when time comes to upgrade I'll be running 64-bit XP with an Epox nForce3 board and Athlon 64 (hopefully OCed like mad )

[AZN]

Y is it when intel is winning in benchmarks it no longer matters but when AMD is winning in benchmarks it gets posted all over the place and matters?

[JungleMan]

Originally posted by AZN
Y is it when intel is winning in benchmarks it no longer matters but when AMD is winning in benchmarks it gets posted all over the place and matters?

I have never cared or pretended to care about AMD's high end chips, even back in the day when AMD was winning the race...

I'll be upgrading to A64 only when I can find one under $150 or so, and an accompanying mobo for slightly less than that. And only if it's the most competitive chip for the money.

I think the real quesiton is why the Intel fans must post in the AMD CPUs section about Intel chips? We know about Intel chips, just like you guys know about AMD chips, and if we are interested in buying one we will go over there ourselves and ask you all what mobo and CPU we should get.

But until then, you all can keep your Intel chips in the Intel section and we'll keep the AMD stuff in here. If A64 came out tomorrow, costed $20 and beat the 3.0C by 400%, I'd sure buy one (I'm pretty sure you would too actually), and I'd recommend everyone who is asking to buy one, but I wouldn't be posting in the Intel forum about it.

[portorock]

Ah fuwy, I don't really care about the hottest cpu on the market becuase it always costs so damn much (AMD or Intel) What I have has done me well for what I paid. Rught now Intel is on top, and it WILL eventually shift to AMD and back again. The most important thing for all of us is that AMD actually come out with a decent product. Not for just us AMDroids, but for the Intelaholics as well. If Intel has no competition, what's gonna stop them from raising prices and producing better cpu's, nothing. IMO. Frag me if you want, I have thick skin

[The Wicker Man]

Originally posted by AZN
Y is it when intel is winning in benchmarks it no longer matters but when AMD is winning in benchmarks it gets posted all over the place and matters?

For the same reason people argue about nVidia and ATi........

To look like little kids in a sandbox fighting over who's gonna eat the worm they just found.........

[hitechjb1]

Is there a dual CPU dual channel mb that can take one AMD CPU and one Intel CPU, with a FSB interface between 800 MHz and 600 MHz (for AMD CPU oc), so both processors can run a new benchmark 32-bit program called harmony?

But then, how about when AMD moves to 64-bit? Do I have to change socket?

[JungleMan]

Originally posted by hitechjb1
Is there a dual CPU dual channel mb that can take one AMD CPU and one Intel CPU, with a FSB interface between 800 MHz and 600 MHz (for AMD CPU oc), so both processors can run a new benchmark 32-bit program called harmony?

But then, how about when AMD moves to 64-bit? Do I have to change socket?

No, there are no motherboards that support both Intel and AMD

[Bruno]

Where was that link? tomsintelfudware.com/ ???

Don't ya just love Tommyboys? They're so cute in their intel fudwear.