AMD blows Intel right out of the water!

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by Torrey Lauer, Dec 5, 2005.

  1. Torrey Lauer

    Torrey Lauer Guest

    Did anyone else see the CNet comparison of AMD and Intel dual core
    processors? I just read it today, and while I prefer AMD over Intel, I was
    actually surprised to see that Intel did NOT beat AMD on any benchmarkings
    out of the seven that CNet ran!

    I deleted the e-mail, but may be able to find the article if anyone's
    interested in reading it.

    --
    Torrey Lauer
    Modern Travel Services
    moderntravel DOT net

    Rainbow Sky Travel
    rainbow sky travel DOT net
    Torrey Lauer, Dec 5, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Yes I saw it a few days ago and I think it was posted here as well.

    --
    Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    "Torrey Lauer" <> wrote in message
    news:%23voAC$d%...
    > Did anyone else see the CNet comparison of AMD and Intel dual core
    > processors? I just read it today, and while I prefer AMD over Intel, I
    > was actually surprised to see that Intel did NOT beat AMD on any
    > benchmarkings out of the seven that CNet ran!
    >
    > I deleted the e-mail, but may be able to find the article if anyone's
    > interested in reading it.
    >
    > --
    > Torrey Lauer
    > Modern Travel Services
    > moderntravel DOT net
    >
    > Rainbow Sky Travel
    > rainbow sky travel DOT net
    >
    Colin Barnhorst, Dec 5, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Torrey Lauer

    M. Murcek Guest

    I'm enjoying the performance of my dual Opeteron setup, but I think it would
    be a mistake to imagine Intel will lag behind forever...

    "Torrey Lauer" <> wrote in message
    news:%23voAC$d%...
    > Did anyone else see the CNet comparison of AMD and Intel dual core
    > processors? I just read it today, and while I prefer AMD over Intel, I
    > was actually surprised to see that Intel did NOT beat AMD on any
    > benchmarkings out of the seven that CNet ran!
    >
    > I deleted the e-mail, but may be able to find the article if anyone's
    > interested in reading it.
    >
    > --
    > Torrey Lauer
    > Modern Travel Services
    > moderntravel DOT net
    >
    > Rainbow Sky Travel
    > rainbow sky travel DOT net
    >
    M. Murcek, Dec 5, 2005
    #3
  4. I agree. Up to a point you can sell anything if you advertise convincingly
    enough. Once they've moved marketing down among the boilers they'll be
    rolling again!

    Tony. . .


    "M. Murcek" <> wrote in message
    news:OCqBFFe%...
    > I'm enjoying the performance of my dual Opeteron setup, but I think it
    > would be a mistake to imagine Intel will lag behind forever...
    >
    > "Torrey Lauer" <> wrote in message
    > news:%23voAC$d%...
    >> Did anyone else see the CNet comparison of AMD and Intel dual core
    >> processors? I just read it today, and while I prefer AMD over Intel, I
    >> was actually surprised to see that Intel did NOT beat AMD on any
    >> benchmarkings out of the seven that CNet ran!
    >>
    >> I deleted the e-mail, but may be able to find the article if anyone's
    >> interested in reading it.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Torrey Lauer
    >> Modern Travel Services
    >> moderntravel DOT net
    >>
    >> Rainbow Sky Travel
    >> rainbow sky travel DOT net
    >>

    >
    >
    Tony Sperling, Dec 5, 2005
    #4
  5. Torrey Lauer

    Rob Wilkens Guest

    I think it would have been a mistake to believe that because Intel made the
    first PC processors that they would always make the best or fastest or be
    around the longest.

    "M. Murcek" <> wrote in message
    news:OCqBFFe%...
    > I'm enjoying the performance of my dual Opeteron setup, but I think it
    > would be a mistake to imagine Intel will lag behind forever...
    >
    > "Torrey Lauer" <> wrote in message
    > news:%23voAC$d%...
    >> Did anyone else see the CNet comparison of AMD and Intel dual core
    >> processors? I just read it today, and while I prefer AMD over Intel, I
    >> was actually surprised to see that Intel did NOT beat AMD on any
    >> benchmarkings out of the seven that CNet ran!
    >>
    >> I deleted the e-mail, but may be able to find the article if anyone's
    >> interested in reading it.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Torrey Lauer
    >> Modern Travel Services
    >> moderntravel DOT net
    >>
    >> Rainbow Sky Travel
    >> rainbow sky travel DOT net
    >>

    >
    >
    Rob Wilkens, Dec 5, 2005
    #5
  6. Yeah, that was posted here a couple of days ago. An interesting comparison,
    but I wouldn't count Intel out for the long haul. Consider instead how far
    they've come from when they finally decided to jump on the amd64 bandwagon.
    They were, after all, starting almost from scratch.

    --
    Charlie.
    http://msmvps.com/xperts64

    Torrey Lauer wrote:
    > Did anyone else see the CNet comparison of AMD and Intel dual core
    > processors? I just read it today, and while I prefer AMD over Intel, I
    > was actually surprised to see that Intel did NOT beat AMD on any
    > benchmarkings out of the seven that CNet ran!
    >
    > I deleted the e-mail, but may be able to find the article if anyone's
    > interested in reading it.
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Dec 5, 2005
    #6
  7. Torrey Lauer

    Jud Hendrix Guest

    On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 15:36:19 -0800, "Charlie Russel - MVP"
    <> wrote:

    >Yeah, that was posted here a couple of days ago.


    Here's the link again:

    >>From: "M. Murcek" <>
    >>Subject: Dual core CPU shootout...
    >>Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 17:38:02 -0500
    >>Message-ID: <OQ6vWTf#>
    >>
    >>http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7-6389077-1.html?tag=lnav


    jud
    Jud Hendrix, Dec 5, 2005
    #7
  8. Torrey Lauer

    Jean Cyr Guest

    "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote:

    >They were, after all, starting almost from scratch.


    Not so. The architecture work was all done for them by AMD. I think they'd be
    better off fixing their sidebus bottleneck but that's another story.

    Jean Cyr, Dillobits Software

    http://www.dillobits.com

    /* Time ain't money when all you got is time. */
    Jean Cyr, Dec 5, 2005
    #8
  9. I'm impressed by the work Intel is doing to reduce their thermal emissions.
    That may prove to be enough to win me back. It was the heat being generated
    in my P4 boxes that got me to looking at AMD in the first place.

    --
    Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    news:OQ6vWTf%...
    > Yeah, that was posted here a couple of days ago. An interesting
    > comparison, but I wouldn't count Intel out for the long haul. Consider
    > instead how far they've come from when they finally decided to jump on the
    > amd64 bandwagon. They were, after all, starting almost from scratch.
    >
    > --
    > Charlie.
    > http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >
    > Torrey Lauer wrote:
    >> Did anyone else see the CNet comparison of AMD and Intel dual core
    >> processors? I just read it today, and while I prefer AMD over Intel, I
    >> was actually surprised to see that Intel did NOT beat AMD on any
    >> benchmarkings out of the seven that CNet ran!
    >>
    >> I deleted the e-mail, but may be able to find the article if anyone's
    >> interested in reading it.

    >
    >
    Colin Barnhorst, Dec 5, 2005
    #9
  10. Yes. I had a couple of killer dual Xeon boxes. With 10k SCSI drives, they
    were real workhorses. But they could heat the entire house, and I live in
    Canada. ;)

    But they really need to do something about the memory interface.


    --
    Charlie.
    http://msmvps.com/xperts64

    Colin Barnhorst wrote:
    > I'm impressed by the work Intel is doing to reduce their thermal
    > emissions. That may prove to be enough to win me back. It was the heat
    > being generated in my P4 boxes that got me to looking at AMD in the first
    > place.
    >> Yeah, that was posted here a couple of days ago. An interesting
    >> comparison, but I wouldn't count Intel out for the long haul. Consider
    >> instead how far they've come from when they finally decided to jump on
    >> the amd64 bandwagon. They were, after all, starting almost from scratch.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Charlie.
    >> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >>
    >> Torrey Lauer wrote:
    >>> Did anyone else see the CNet comparison of AMD and Intel dual core
    >>> processors? I just read it today, and while I prefer AMD over Intel, I
    >>> was actually surprised to see that Intel did NOT beat AMD on any
    >>> benchmarkings out of the seven that CNet ran!
    >>>
    >>> I deleted the e-mail, but may be able to find the article if anyone's
    >>> interested in reading it.
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Dec 6, 2005
    #10
  11. well, yes, fixing that would be a good thing.

    --
    Charlie.
    http://msmvps.com/xperts64

    Jean Cyr wrote:
    > "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote:
    >
    >> They were, after all, starting almost from scratch.

    >
    > Not so. The architecture work was all done for them by AMD. I think
    > they'd be better off fixing their sidebus bottleneck but that's another
    > story.
    >
    > Jean Cyr, Dillobits Software
    >
    > http://www.dillobits.com
    >
    > /* Time ain't money when all you got is time. */
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Dec 6, 2005
    #11
  12. Torrey Lauer

    M. Murcek Guest

    Well, GM is in the process of going from once upon a time shipping more than
    half the cars sold in this country (USA) to a much smaller percentage, so
    the mighty sure can fall. All the same, Intel's got a huge capitalization,
    and whether they engineer themselves out of the corner or buy someone else's
    big ideas, they'll probably be back. Also, anyone who's been around
    computing for a while has got to know that the x86 instruction set, no
    matter what extensions are applied to it, won't be dominant forever, anymore
    than Z-80 or 68000 instruction sets are today. Better will remain the enemy
    of good enough. BTW - Intel DID have to reverse engineer the AMD x86
    extensions. That's not the same as copying a few pages out of a book down
    at the library.

    "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    news:uXxONAg%...
    > Yes. I had a couple of killer dual Xeon boxes. With 10k SCSI drives, they
    > were real workhorses. But they could heat the entire house, and I live in
    > Canada. ;)
    >
    > But they really need to do something about the memory interface.
    >
    >
    > --
    > Charlie.
    > http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >
    > Colin Barnhorst wrote:
    >> I'm impressed by the work Intel is doing to reduce their thermal
    >> emissions. That may prove to be enough to win me back. It was the heat
    >> being generated in my P4 boxes that got me to looking at AMD in the first
    >> place.
    >>> Yeah, that was posted here a couple of days ago. An interesting
    >>> comparison, but I wouldn't count Intel out for the long haul. Consider
    >>> instead how far they've come from when they finally decided to jump on
    >>> the amd64 bandwagon. They were, after all, starting almost from scratch.
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Charlie.
    >>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >>>
    >>> Torrey Lauer wrote:
    >>>> Did anyone else see the CNet comparison of AMD and Intel dual core
    >>>> processors? I just read it today, and while I prefer AMD over Intel, I
    >>>> was actually surprised to see that Intel did NOT beat AMD on any
    >>>> benchmarkings out of the seven that CNet ran!
    >>>>
    >>>> I deleted the e-mail, but may be able to find the article if anyone's
    >>>> interested in reading it.

    >
    >
    M. Murcek, Dec 6, 2005
    #12
  13. M. Murcek wrote:
    <snip>
    > BTW - Intel DID
    > have to reverse engineer the AMD x86 extensions. That's not the same as
    > copying a few pages out of a book down at the library.
    >
    >

    Must have been a fun exercise and a bit of irony for them. ;)

    But not as bad as knowing that now, and forever more, code for their
    processors will reside in the '/amd64' directory.
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Dec 6, 2005
    #13
  14. Top Secret Intel Processor Plans Uncovered ,,,,,

    Read what: tomshardware.com have to say

    "Jud Hendrix" wrote:

    > On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 15:36:19 -0800, "Charlie Russel - MVP"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >Yeah, that was posted here a couple of days ago.

    >
    > Here's the link again:
    >
    > >>From: "M. Murcek" <>
    > >>Subject: Dual core CPU shootout...
    > >>Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 17:38:02 -0500
    > >>Message-ID: <OQ6vWTf#>
    > >>
    > >>http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7-6389077-1.html?tag=lnav

    >
    > jud
    >
    =?Utf-8?B?U3dhbm5pZQ==?=, Dec 6, 2005
    #14
  15. Torrey Lauer

    Rob Stow Guest

    Charlie Russel - MVP wrote:
    > M. Murcek wrote:
    > <snip>
    >> BTW - Intel DID
    >> have to reverse engineer the AMD x86 extensions. That's not the same as
    >> copying a few pages out of a book down at the library.


    Intel and AMD have a cross-licensing agreement that gave Intel a
    very detailed description of what AMD64 is all about.

    It was up to Intel to figure out /how/ to they were going to
    implement AMD64 in hardware, but they did *not* have to figure
    out /what/ to implement.

    Similarly, AMD did not have to reverse engineer anything in order
    to find out what SSE3 was all about: the cross-licensing
    agreement told them that. All AMD had to do was figure out /how/
    to implement SSE3 - not /what/ to implement.




    >>
    >>

    > Must have been a fun exercise and a bit of irony for them. ;)
    >
    > But not as bad as knowing that now, and forever more, code for their
    > processors will reside in the '/amd64' directory.
    >
    Rob Stow, Dec 6, 2005
    #15
  16. Torrey Lauer

    M. Murcek Guest

    So, in a way, they need each other. So much for the story where the little
    fish gobbles up the bigger fish...

    "Rob Stow" <> wrote in message
    news:%23ZIdHVp%...
    > Charlie Russel - MVP wrote:
    >> M. Murcek wrote:
    >> <snip>
    >>> BTW - Intel DID
    >>> have to reverse engineer the AMD x86 extensions. That's not the same as
    >>> copying a few pages out of a book down at the library.

    >
    > Intel and AMD have a cross-licensing agreement that gave Intel a very
    > detailed description of what AMD64 is all about.
    >
    > It was up to Intel to figure out /how/ to they were going to implement
    > AMD64 in hardware, but they did *not* have to figure out /what/ to
    > implement.
    >
    > Similarly, AMD did not have to reverse engineer anything in order to find
    > out what SSE3 was all about: the cross-licensing agreement told them
    > that. All AMD had to do was figure out /how/ to implement SSE3 - not
    > /what/ to implement.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >>>
    >>>

    >> Must have been a fun exercise and a bit of irony for them. ;)
    >>
    >> But not as bad as knowing that now, and forever more, code for their
    >> processors will reside in the '/amd64' directory.
    M. Murcek, Dec 6, 2005
    #16
  17. Torrey Lauer

    Rob Stow Guest

    M. Murcek wrote:
    > So, in a way, they need each other. So much for the story where the little
    > fish gobbles up the bigger fish...


    What makes the AMD/Intel x86 cross-licensing agreement fun is
    that they apparently don't have to tell each other what they are
    /developing/ - only about what they actually release into the world.

    Eg., although everyone knew Intel was working on SSE3, it was 18+
    months before the first chips with SSE3 were released and it was
    not until then that Intel finally had to give AMD the specifics
    about the new instructions.

    >
    > "Rob Stow" <> wrote in message
    > news:%23ZIdHVp%...
    >> Charlie Russel - MVP wrote:
    >>> M. Murcek wrote:
    >>> <snip>
    >>>> BTW - Intel DID
    >>>> have to reverse engineer the AMD x86 extensions. That's not the same as
    >>>> copying a few pages out of a book down at the library.

    >> Intel and AMD have a cross-licensing agreement that gave Intel a very
    >> detailed description of what AMD64 is all about.
    >>
    >> It was up to Intel to figure out /how/ to they were going to implement
    >> AMD64 in hardware, but they did *not* have to figure out /what/ to
    >> implement.
    >>
    >> Similarly, AMD did not have to reverse engineer anything in order to find
    >> out what SSE3 was all about: the cross-licensing agreement told them
    >> that. All AMD had to do was figure out /how/ to implement SSE3 - not
    >> /what/ to implement.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>>
    >>> Must have been a fun exercise and a bit of irony for them. ;)
    >>>
    >>> But not as bad as knowing that now, and forever more, code for their
    >>> processors will reside in the '/amd64' directory.

    >
    >
    Rob Stow, Dec 6, 2005
    #17
  18. Torrey Lauer

    Intel Inside Guest

    "starting almost from scratch" - true but self inflicted

    "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    news:OQ6vWTf%...
    > Yeah, that was posted here a couple of days ago. An interesting
    > comparison, but I wouldn't count Intel out for the long haul. Consider
    > instead how far they've come from when they finally decided to jump on the
    > amd64 bandwagon. They were, after all, starting almost from scratch.
    >
    > --
    > Charlie.
    > http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >
    > Torrey Lauer wrote:
    >> Did anyone else see the CNet comparison of AMD and Intel dual core
    >> processors? I just read it today, and while I prefer AMD over Intel, I
    >> was actually surprised to see that Intel did NOT beat AMD on any
    >> benchmarkings out of the seven that CNet ran!
    >>
    >> I deleted the e-mail, but may be able to find the article if anyone's
    >> interested in reading it.

    >
    >
    Intel Inside, Dec 7, 2005
    #18
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Silverstrand
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,124
    zachig
    Jul 3, 2005
  2. =?Utf-8?B?VGlt?=

    Re: Standby/Hibernate blows out wireless connection

    =?Utf-8?B?VGlt?=, Aug 7, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,145
    =?Utf-8?B?VGlt?=
    Aug 7, 2004
  3. Jim
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    963
    Moz Champion
    Jun 1, 2005
  4. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    412
  5. Derek Fountain

    How water resistant is a water resistant lens?

    Derek Fountain, Mar 18, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    319
    Joseph Meehan
    Mar 18, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page