AMD present more troubles for Intel
October 20th, 2004 Leave a comment Visited 251 times, 2 so far today
AMD present more troubles for Intel
If canceling the Pentium-4 4GHz processor was not enough, AMD has come up with fresher set of problems for Intel. Chipmaker Advanced Micro Devices renewed the claims of being the maker of the fastest PC Microprocessors out there with the launch of 2 new processors. These 2 new processors are targeting at the high-end desktop systems for gamers and designers.
The new chips are named Athlon 64 FX-55 and Athlon 64 4000+ and ironically seem to target Intel’s failure to deliver a 4GHz processor. However, analyst say that the release were in the pipeline since quite some time. These new releases somehow legitimizes AMD’s claim of being the manufacturer of fastest PC processors at the moment considering benchmarks clearly show AMDs having a lead. Even the most hardcode gamers say they get better gaming performance from AMD’s processors, which are much cheaper than Intel.
However, the fact remains, software manufacturers are failing to come up with products, which can truly utilize the power of these hardware gizmos. Very few applications and games can claim to be optimized for 64-bit processors. However, times certainly are changing and let us hope, we move to 64 bit computing soon.
|
TechWhack on Facebook
|
October 22nd, 2004 at 6:12 am
[...] ey had to cancel the highly anticipated Pentium-4 4GHz processor. AMD responded with their new 64-Bit Processors, which are now arguably the fastest desktop processors [...]
November 2nd, 2004 at 11:09 am
[...] pm
Intel’s extreme step for Gamers AMD released two extremely powerful chips recently after Intel had to back down from the p [...]
October 21st, 2004 at 4:42 pm
[...] news for all the bad reasons. They had to first cancel their Pentium4 4GHz processor and AMD added to their misery with the launch of their new 64-bit processors. [...]
October 20th, 2004 at 4:21 pm
CORRECTED ONE
There is no doubt that AMD processors are best in performance as compared to intel but cannot compeet with intel in terms of market penetration . Intel has the majority of market share but in terms of technology the worst as compared to AMD.
Reds
Deepu
October 20th, 2004 at 4:23 pm
Intel have the resources and the money and the connections in the industry. Dell CEO said sometime ago that AMD cannot make enough processors and lack resources to compete with Intel in providing support.
But truth remains, AMD are beating Intel at their own game. :)
October 20th, 2004 at 4:29 pm
being big didnt save the dinosaur, and Dell is hawking TV sets, again its time for the people who care about computation to split from thoose who dont
October 20th, 2004 at 4:46 pm
The main reason software adaption for AMD64 is poor on windows is that AMD broke up the strangle-hold of Microsoft/Intel on the market. Intel had no intention of creating a 64 bit consumer CPU until AMD ruined their party. Thus Microsoft have no real decent support for it. (NB: Use Linux!).
Being privy to the betas for Win2003 x86_64 I can tell you it’s a big piece of trash.
October 20th, 2004 at 4:49 pm
For several years AMD have produced faster processors for desktops then INTEL.
PC magazine was slow to recognize it.
October 20th, 2004 at 4:52 pm
AMD was always dangling with intel in performance until recently AMD has an steady better performance over intel. It is just a matter of time for AMD to eat intel.
October 20th, 2004 at 4:54 pm
AMD will really jump ahead now.
Their architecture has been superior since the XP processor. INTEL stayed ahead with superior manufacturing processes that allowed them higher yields of low nanometer (.90 process) parts.. This higher clock speeds.. But now that they’re at the ceiling with the clock speeds because of the heat issue, they have to redesign a processor from scratch (they’re not doing it though, they’re just going to convert the existing structure -Prescott- to dual core.. which is more trouble because the architecture is substandard vs. AMD’s architecture) You’re looking at a few years at least of an AMD lead unless AMD drops the ball on dual core. It’s a real horse race to dual and quad core now.. With the winners being the consumer.
October 20th, 2004 at 5:09 pm
Why are AMD prices sky high? The Intel EE CPU are not to even be taken seriously. But the AMD FX processors for $800-$1000? Hello???
I’ll sit this one out!
October 20th, 2004 at 5:25 pm
Amd has the price lead since a while.
When they started selling the K6 Intel made the crappy Celeron to compete on the price
They even bought a benchmarking soft company to compete on the benchmark side (they modified the prg a bit…).
They got a lot of reviewer compare the K6 (Made for a 1Mb L2 cache) with the Intel on the same mainboard to trick the PC community.
They forced Shuttle and a few other to REMOVE their support page for the VIA chipset that where made to give the k6 1Mb cache… (They said the 10,000 Chipset from Intel would not be delivered if the VIA was on the main web page…)
Since then I never bought an Intel again and NEVER will (My last Intel Cpu was a 286…)
Those finding the price high for those new release should check the release price for the Intel newest CPU they are almost 300$ USD higher…
Next year AMD will be 130% faster than Intel
Intel should sued like Microsoft was, but they deserve it even more!
October 20th, 2004 at 5:31 pm
AMD has been the reigning champ of CPU performance for a good number of years now. I don’t think it’s news that they have “renewed their claim”, as Intel has failed to knock them out of the top spot. Intel keeps dropping the ball everytime the game is turned over to them, if they keep up the trend, another few years and Intel will be the new Cyrix.
October 20th, 2004 at 5:50 pm
the competion is good, pity microsoft doesn’t have more of it.
October 20th, 2004 at 5:51 pm
AMD’s processor run better and cooler than Intel’s. You can tell by the required cooling fans. You need a Carrier A/C fan with a Nuclear Plant Heat Sink to cool an Intel processor.
October 20th, 2004 at 6:20 pm
The mere fact you guys are reading shows that you are at least interested in the CPU war going on, but you are in the minority. Too many people will still buy Intel/Dell because of their mafia styled OEM pressures and because of their flashy marketing. (Ding ding dong duh). Very few will ever consider price and performance and will instead find comfort in the slower, pricier units that have that oh, so comforting Intel logo
October 20th, 2004 at 6:20 pm
I think it funny how Intels chips ran cooler than AMD in the beginning. Now its the other way around. My how the tables have turned.
October 20th, 2004 at 6:34 pm
Most of you can’t form a coherent sentence.
October 20th, 2004 at 6:38 pm
Actually, historically AMD processors produce much more heat then Intel’s processors. IMHO part of the reason why they’re cheaper to produce for AMD, although thats just random speculation.
October 20th, 2004 at 6:38 pm
AMD chips will always be faster and more affordable then Intels. Intel has had many chances to top AMD and they have failed every time. For gaming, yes, AMD is clearly the winner and looks as if they will continue to be the winner for years to come.
October 20th, 2004 at 6:43 pm
AMD je najbolji!
October 20th, 2004 at 6:51 pm
The competition is healthy. Let Intel become too small and beaten down and there is no reason for AMD to innovate. Presonally I prefer AMD chips, but ironically long live Intel!
October 20th, 2004 at 6:52 pm
Perhaps some editing would help speed up the acceptance of AMD.
“However, analyst say that the release were in the pipeline since quite some time.”
October 20th, 2004 at 7:04 pm
AMD pwns.
October 20th, 2004 at 7:06 pm
While it’s true intel does command a large part of the market it’s also because of intel’s reputation of stability that precedes them. If amd can push into the business sector it would have a bigger impact in the industry. Also everyone knows gamers are the ones that dictate which hardware is superior. Performance + Price = Success
what more can you ask for? Amd has their foot in the door and intel is in trouble.
October 20th, 2004 at 7:07 pm
I like to see Intel getting a dose of their own medicine. I started using AMD processors on Asus motherboards quite a while ago, and it’s simply the best, I only ever had one system with an Intel processor…the first time I used it I said “Yikes, buying this was a mistake”
October 20th, 2004 at 7:09 pm
@Dennis Boyd
That statement is to reflect that the release of the new processors were expected and are not related to Intel’s faliure to deliver a P4 4GHz processor. :)
October 20th, 2004 at 7:11 pm
“the competion is good, pity microsoft doesn’t have more of it.”
Microsoft doesn’t even make good software, now you want them to become a chip maker? Ehem, moron.
Intel finally cracked under the marketing petistal (inflated clock speed) they made for themselves. FINALLY proof that marketing doesn’t win in the end. Better engineering does, and better engineering is what AMD has over Intel. Consumers don’t know it yet, but if Intel keeps screwing up, they will.
What the industry needs is an impartial panel to develop a new benchmark for computers which is easy for the consumer to understand. Time and again it’s been proven that clock speed is a poor indicator of overall performance.
October 20th, 2004 at 7:13 pm
I just wish AMD. would make up their minds on how many pins their chips are going to have. They are making it difficult to make an intelligent decision as to what mother board to upgrade to, or which one will become obsolete.
October 20th, 2004 at 7:14 pm
Lets not wave away the IDT WinChip or the Cyrix. With them began the attempts to dethrone the king of the CPU hill. There were three of them AMD/Cyrix/WinChip. And one of them, AMD did not bite the dust. And now the king of the CPU hill is begining to slip. Neither should we brush of Via with its Vi C3/C5 processors. The Mini-ITX platform is very well recieved in knowledgeable quaters. Locustworlds Mesh Box is a good example. http://www.via.com.tw/en/resources/pressroom/2004_archive/pr040923lw_securemesh.jsp
They are also planning a 64 bit foray
http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id;1728740703;fp;2;fpid;1
http://www.eet.com/semi/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=49400794
http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id;1728740703;fp;2;fpid;1
October 20th, 2004 at 7:26 pm
“Microsoft doesn’t even make good software, now you want them to become a chip maker? Ehem, moron.”
I believe he was referring to the monopoly Microsoft has. Not about chips but software.
October 20th, 2004 at 7:27 pm
“Even the most hardcode gamers say they get better gaming performance from AMD”
They have been in the AMD camp for awhile.
Note to self: Don’t read harware news that go LCD and use expressions like hardware gizmos
October 20th, 2004 at 7:48 pm
In my opinion, I think AMD will be the clear winner in the next year and a half.
First, AMD like Intel is switch to the .065 nm tech by 2nd or 3rd quarter of next year.
Secondly, because of AMD’s Hyper transport tech, it is possible for them to place 2 cores (on the .09 nm tech, scheduled release for middle of next year), and eventually 4 cores (on .065 nm tech) for the end of next Year. The other difference bewteen Intel and AMD’s dual cores, is that AMD’s will be 2 cores on the same waffer, where as intels, will be on top of eachother(using there mobile laptop tech) sharing the same cache. ALso Intels release of DUal core will be September, where as AMD’s is June, and we all know how Intel likes to push back release dates.
Thirdly, AMD has a on chip memory controller, which maximizes memory use where as intel still uses a secondary chip, which is also taxed for other tasks to send info to and from the memory. Why intel hasn’t gone to onchip memory controller is beyond me.
Fourthly unless Intel comes out with a new set of instructions, all new processors form AMD and Intel will have mmx+, 3dnow!+, SSE 1,2, and 3, and x86_64 (for AMD), and EMT64 (for Intel).
As for the number of pins, I think 939 will be safe. Until they move to the .065 nm tech, then they’ll come out with a new socket in my opinion.
October 20th, 2004 at 7:54 pm
Most people don`t know the products`performance of the CPU both Intel and AMD.It is pity that their opinions depends on other`s. USe it , find it and say it .
October 20th, 2004 at 7:55 pm
I agree AMD make cheaper and just as reliable chips as Intel. It’s sad but all of this really means nothing to most consumers. As long as you have $5/hr idiots working at Best Buy and Circuit City who have no idea as how to explain to the consumer that they can save money with an AMD based machine, companies like Intel will always thrive.
October 20th, 2004 at 8:00 pm
Hooray for AMD! This is the good thing about real competition. AMD is real competition for Intel and Intel to AMD. Where is the answer for Microsoft? But that’s another issue.
I find it very amusing about everybody taking a position about which is better. I also found it amusing about AMD’s 64bit processor. So many people said “this is the first x86 processor to address memory above 4GB of memory”.
Well, actually, Intel has been using 32 bit instructions and 36 bit addressing (64GB) since 1996. I used a workstation in 1997 that had 8GB of memory with 4 Pentium Pros running SMP Linux.
Intel is doing an excellent job (way beyond AMD) in the server arena. This is true for both their XEON and Itanium processors, as well as thir chipsets. They have taken the technology from their old Super Scalar Division (the worlds first TerraFlop Super Computer -’97) which connected more than 2000 Processors together with a MESH.
They now use that technology with CCNUMA to scale servers to about as many processors as a company or person can afford.
What Intel does have going for it now is 3 important, IMHO, things: A) Market acceptance (nobody ever got fired for buying Intel); B) Moving their server technology to the PC platform (multiple core SMP operaction and FSB/BSB tech.); 3) A superior Validation and Verification capability.
Who can tell me which computer is faster: A) a system with 8 3Ghz XEON processors each with 32MBL3, 8MBL2, 1MBL1 caches, a quad-pumped 400Mhz (aka 1.6GHz) FSB, 8 serial I/O hubs, and 32GB memory; or B) a AMD 64bit with …. who cares… why… answer below….
My wife is a web designer. Has Photoshop constantly open, web editor, browser, outlook, Word, all open. Her 1GHz PC was performing very poorly. I stuck 2GB of memory in … her performance problems evaported. She has a computer which is almost 4 years old and peforms well not because of the processor, but there is no page swapping because of the quantity of RAM.
October 21st, 2004 at 2:48 am
ive been working in 3d for years now. In our 3d render farm, the AMD boxes always outpace the intels. even some of the older amd chips outperform the p4’s! I’ve been recommending amd for years now… I’m the proud owner of an AMD 64 Athlon, couldnt be happier!
October 21st, 2004 at 3:11 am
Perhaps Intel makes better server procs, but thats not the point. We’re talking about consumable high-end desktop computing here: running graphic intensive 3D games, encoding video, etc. Most consumers dont even need the setup to which you refer (multiple xeon procs, massive amounts of memory and whatnot), much less afford it!
And yes, memory is important, but for most applications but it will only increase performance so far… at this point in time 2 gig of memory in a standard desktop computer will give every bit of performance that 4 gig will, simply because there arent any programs that use more than that.
That said, its nice to see AMD finally getting credit from the general community for being at least as good as Intel
October 21st, 2004 at 7:01 am
Who can tell me which computer is faster: A) a system with 8 3Ghz XEON processors each with 32MBL3, 8MBL2, 1MBL1 caches, a quad-pumped 400Mhz (aka 1.6GHz) FSB, 8 serial I/O hubs, and 32GB memory; or B) a AMD 64bit with …. who cares… why… answer below….
STU!#% comparison!!!!! put in a 8 opterons and those inferior Xeon chips should be lagging!!!!
October 21st, 2004 at 11:18 am
Yes, I agree with these comments very much. I once owned a Duron 700 on a Chaintech 7AJA-100 mainboard from Feb 2001 (which the Duron 700 was upgraded to Duron 1300 in late 2002), until Nov 2003, and it was the best buy ever. The Duron 700 was very cheap, just US$45, yet its performance is comparable to Pentium III 700 of at least US$130 at that time. (I just paid US$145 for the board and Duron.)The system is also rock-stable.
I have a Celeron 2.4 system on Asus P4SGX-MX (400FSB only) since Nov 2003, and it is the worst purchase ever. Celeron performs very poorly that is schooled by Athlon XP 1700+ of just US$50. Yet the Celeron is expensive, with price of US$70. The system always hanged from day to day.
If I have enough money I would certainly upgrade to Socket 939 Athlon 64 3000+ and Abit AV8 mainboard, which ensures upgradability until the end of 2006!
October 21st, 2004 at 7:45 pm
My oh my. AMD has become a religion. Intel is the Anitchrist?
Let’s see… DELL is the most profitable computer company ever. They are consitantly quarter after quarter making bigger profits. They did so even during the downturn in 2001-2002. Let’s see… how many AMD products do they sell? They must see Intel has their Religion. Why? Intel can manufacture the QUANTITIES of product they need to deliver.
It is EASY to manufacturer the FASTEST processor in low quantities. If Intel were looking at the kind of numbers in which AMD typically delivers they could always have the fastest. If Intel were not interested in the kind of financial MARGIN they have on their products, they could easily deliver a faster processor.
I love making these comments here, it is such blasphemy. Like a religion, many of you have the rational thinking process of a zealot even when the facts are contrary. The day I think AMD has beat Intel is the day I’d see the Red Socks advance to the World Series… it just ain’t ever gonna happen.
October 21st, 2004 at 8:26 pm
I’m not going to comment on anything you said Ben Dover, except I can’t resist this:
“The day I think AMD has beat Intel is the day I’d see the Red Socks advance to the World Series… it just ain’t ever gonna happen.”
Ironically, the Red Sox are now in the world series. (still, the date stamp indicates you should know that. Are you just being sarcastic?)
October 24th, 2004 at 6:11 pm
AMD is the best. I have not seen any person whom I know who is not satisfied with its performance. I have two pcs both are AMD. Intel is just a brand and nothing more. I hope AMD will remain like this so consumers will have more options. More POWER AMD!!!!!!!!!!
November 2nd, 2004 at 5:53 pm
A lot of the comments here compared the processors from “gaming” experience. I don’t think this is an accurate benchmark comparison. Games typically showcase the power of video cards. I still think Intel has more crunching power and better stability. But I’m a fan of both processors, and I also like AMD processors for their price. I’d rate Intel “slightly” ahead on stability and performance, but the “cheaper” AMD processors more than tips the balance to claim the better overall “purchase” value. This is just my opinion. =)
November 2nd, 2004 at 6:12 pm
I’m still waiting true 64 bit computing. That’s the whole point behind these new processors, Who in there right mind would upgrade to another 32 bit cpu.when 64 is clearly the way of the future. But I’m still waiting……
November 2nd, 2004 at 10:51 pm
China will soon make the fastest processor that prove the inferiority of the west.
February 27th, 2005 at 8:48 pm
What about Apple with their Dual G5 Power Macs?
I’ve got one and they handle 64 bit software. Been out several years now!