Where AMD leads, Intel follows

[KOXC2003]

"Xbitlabs.com did a CPU roundup with a ton of tests. While the P4 at 3.2 won a fair share of non-gaming apps the 3200+ still won more of them."

Was this with a 3.2EE?

 

[OC Noob]

"Xbitlabs.com did a CPU roundup with a ton of tests. While the P4 at 3.2 won a fair share of non-gaming apps the 3200+ still won more of them."

Was this with a 3.2EE?

It was a kick butt review. It had Prescotts, Northwoods, EEs, Athlons, A64s and FXs.

I was speaking about the Northwood though.

Link:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/prescott-tests.html

 

[XWRed1]

Again stick to the topic being AMD and Intel. Why do you feel like changing the subject.

I'm not. I'm trying to make sure you don't lie. You don't want to misrepresent the truth do you?

Aren't AMD and Intel x86 based?

Yes.

Are you trying to say Intel didn't make these specifications which the industry has been following for years?

No. I didn't say Intel didn't make the spec. I'm saying they didn't invent smp, which you claim they did.

Are you trying to not see that OSes like Windows and Linux support it?

I don't know about Windows, but Linux supports several other smp schemes that have zilch to do with anything Intel.

Are you trying to say MPS 1.4 and SMP have nothing to do with one another?

No.

Why do dual AMD and dual Intel MB's have bios settings for it?

Because they use Intel's smp specification. Where are you going with these silly questions?

Are RISC and CISC instruction sets like SSE?

SSE is a specific instruction set (well, technically, an addition to an existing instruction set). RISC/CISC are design philosophies for instruction sets. SSE represents a CISC-like attitude, just because the whole thing is comprised of specialized instructions to take on a small subset of tasks. Base x86 has ALOT of those kinds of instructions like that, ignoring entire bolt-on things like SSE, 3dnow, and MMX.

 

[cV]

Intel has blunderbussed a lot, people have to admit that. AMD as well.

It's just funny that if AMD had made the same mistakes intel has they would long be underwater.

RDRAM was not necessary; the whole market was against it except intel. This caused the corporate stance to eventually turn around.

AMD also realized that they couldn't keep selling CPUs for bargain-basement prices and still make a profit, hence the a64s.

High-end P4s can handily beat Athlon XPs in practically everything. The ratings for bartons are somewhat inflated. This is correct.

Athlon XPs are priced a lot better for the performance, though, and Athlon 64s are arguably the better choice most of the time when debating whether to get a p4 system or not. And do not forget prescott's runaway heat issues.

It all depends on what a person wants to do. AXPs are good for most people, A64s and P4s for those with the money. Even prescott at the moment has its use with the SETI people.

Tons of other things have happened, and tons of other equalizing justifications exist, but I won't list them here. It just seems that some people are worshipping one or another company too much without looking at the facts.

 

[God_Devil_Morta]

both companies screw up.
difference is if intel screws up they have nuff resources to get back on their feet. If AMD screws up.. they might not survive..
Hell they are being helped already by the city of Dresden rite?
btw.. can't spell.

And this 64 bit stuff, umm not hard to do, I commend AMD to do it first, but I find that their on chip mem controller is more innovative that the 64 bit extensions.

And if u want a fast really fast cpu, then u want a 64 bit cpu that isn't based on the x86 design. Now I'm not saying it has to be what intel has, but from what I've heard, the x86 code is a nightmare. Reason that nobody has done it, compatiblity.

btw.. A+ teachers, they mostly know the basics.. but they sad in keeping up with techs... well based on my own experience... still remember a friend bring his comp in and my A+ teacher wowed at how the chips on the geforce 4200 were on both sides of the PCB.

 

[XWRed1]

And if u want a fast really fast cpu, then u want a 64 bit cpu that isn't based on the x86 design. Now I'm not saying it has to be what intel has, but from what I've heard, the x86 code is a nightmare. Reason that nobody has done it, compatiblity.

LOTS of people have done it. Intel did it years ago. Thats what IA64 is. Every single 64-bit processor before the Hammer was non-x86. The things have been around since the early 90s.