MHZ vs. MHZ

This is the place where all heated debates shall reside. Non-tech topics allowed. Personal attacks will not be tolerated. "Enter at your own Risk".

Moderator: The Mod Squad

Postby jmstacey » Sat Oct 05, 2002 9:52 pm

I wonder how all this will change now that intel will be including their hyper threading technology in their processors that are 3Ghz+.
jmstacey
Black Belt
Black Belt
 
Posts: 714
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Colorado

Postby undying fenix » Fri Oct 18, 2002 1:16 pm

good lord lets wait for 3ghz when it comes. thats probably a heck of a long way away and lets not get excited or anything.
Hold that thought.
undying fenix
Green Belt
Green Belt
 
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 12:36 pm
Location: Texa$$

Postby Hockeyfan6781 » Thu Oct 31, 2002 9:49 am

I so can't wait for the clawhammer... Intel better got run and hide... those 3 little blue guys are gonna get crushed.....
Hockeyfan6781
Brown Belt
Brown Belt
 
Posts: 286
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Buffalo, NY

Postby Dzrtfox » Thu Dec 05, 2002 9:19 pm

This is an area I've been watching for some time. What I've come up with is the bottom line, the companies bottom line. AMD is not after the high end market due to the minimal marketshare and higher costs, which when not sold fast enough could build up inventories and become losses. In a down economy I would favor AMD's approach, going after the middle and low end market.

Intel on the other hand is running scared due to the performance of the XP line beating them in performance at the slower clock speeds. Just because Intel is 3-6 months ahead of AMD in the production of the high end chips, does not mean Intel has any sort of edge. Simply put, they are using the .13 micron to AMD's .18 and trying to show a huge difference in MHz, which they have accomplished. What Intel has not accomplished is showing the huge performance difference that should be clearly evident.

In just about every benchmark test I've seen, the XP is clearly the performer at the lower clock speeds. Now why would anyone pay for an Intel chip when they could have a better performer and a cheaper cost? I read an article somewhere about the MHz myth, and basically it states AMD is proving MHz is only part of performance.

I also read another article regarding the SSE instruction sets for Intel. As I recall, it stated AMD was reverse engineering the instruction sets, so that when software companies are strong armed by big bad Intel to use the instruction sets to gain advantages. AMD's chips will be able to not only read them, but do it faster than Intels chips. Now thats what I call an old fashion whooping.

As for the Hammer and 64bit chips, again Intel is going to be 3-6 months ahead of AMD, which should be out 2-3qtr. Will it hurt AMD? In my opinion AMD is gaining on Intel every step of the way.

Thats my story and I'm stickin to it...
Dzrtfox
Pilgrim
Pilgrim
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2002 9:14 am

Postby gamepyrate » Fri Dec 06, 2002 12:17 am

HAven't paid much attention to this lately. Really both major cpu manufacturers are inherently flawed: they hurt themselves with quick updates for competition, in this area Intel is the most problematic, they have huge amounts of older technology they can't sell because of all the new stuff. It's progression in technology at a cost to the companies, we see this happening with AMD's recent cutbacks and Intel's lowering their prices so much. It may be good for the consumer, but the companies are going downhill.
The MHZ war should be cooled down a bit, both AMD and Intel need to sell off their older products before q1 2003 or they're never going to, with all these 64-bit chips and huge barriers being jumped by then they would have to cut the prices way down and leave a gap with no mid-range.
gamepyrate
Black Belt 1st Degree
Black Belt 1st Degree
 
Posts: 1359
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2002 12:00 am

Postby len444 » Fri Dec 06, 2002 4:26 am

Just because Intel is 3-6 months ahead of AMD in the production of the high end chips, does not mean Intel has any sort of edge. Simply put, they are using the .13 micron to AMD's .18 and trying to show a huge difference in MHz, which they have accomplished. What Intel has not accomplished is showing the huge performance difference that should be clearly evident.


both are using .13 micron process technology.
len444
Black Belt 3rd Degree
Black Belt 3rd Degree
 
Posts: 3987
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 1:01 am

Postby Johnny Mnemonic » Fri Dec 06, 2002 10:42 am

both are at .13 micron, yes, but the majority of AMD users are still running .18. As the new thoroughbreds get below 200 bucks, then I would say that the mainstream of both camps are at .13.

My point is that the northwood has been out alot longer than the thoroughbred.
0100101001001101
Image
Johnny Mnemonic
Black Belt 1st Degree
Black Belt 1st Degree
 
Posts: 1903
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 1:01 am
Location: McKinney, Tx

Postby len444 » Fri Dec 06, 2002 4:17 pm

pretty sure most of amd's line of xp cpu's are .13 micron tech. apparently retooled to benefit from reduction in size- still socket A though.
len444
Black Belt 3rd Degree
Black Belt 3rd Degree
 
Posts: 3987
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 1:01 am

Previous

Return to The Hundred Year War

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest