The Empire Strike Back

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Daniel, Mar 8, 2006.

  1. Daniel

    Daniel Guest

    Daniel, Mar 8, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Daniel

    Daniel Guest

    Daniel, Mar 8, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 10:15:53 +1300, Daniel wrote:

    > Link to benchmarks of Intel's Conroe chip wiping the floor with AMD's
    > FX60:-
    >
    > http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=4843&page=1
    >
    > Just in time for Vista... LOL


    But oh so very much more expensive!!


    Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    Buffer-overflow vulnerabilities are simply programming errors; they occur
    when coders fail to deploy proper memory-management techniques.
     
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Mar 8, 2006
    #3
  4. Daniel

    Daniel Guest

    Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
    > On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 10:15:53 +1300, Daniel wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Link to benchmarks of Intel's Conroe chip wiping the floor with AMD's
    >>FX60:-
    >>
    >>http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=4843&page=1
    >>
    >>Just in time for Vista... LOL

    >
    >
    > But oh so very much more expensive!!
    >


    True.

    But, hopefully this will force AMD to review the obscene pricing
    structure they have for their higher end dual cores. Since the
    justifications for higher pricing (faster, lower power consumption)
    won't be so compelling when those new chips arrive.

    Competition is good.
     
    Daniel, Mar 8, 2006
    #4
  5. Daniel wrote:
    > Daniel wrote:
    >> Link to benchmarks of Intel's Conroe chip wiping the floor with AMD's
    >> FX60:-
    >>
    >> http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=4843&page=1
    >>
    >> Just in time for Vista... LOL

    >
    > Perhaps a more thorough preview from Anandtech:-
    >
    > http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2713


    Thanks for these links, I've just read them with interest.

    > In any event, it's clear that Intel may well be grabbing back the
    > serious Gamer market (amongst others) in the near future. Unless AMD
    > comes out with something special.


    Well, it's about time Intel did something right. Let's face it, the world's
    largest CPU manufacturer has been getting it's butt handed to it on a plate
    for quite a while now. They made an extremely bad choice when they dropped
    the P3 Tualatin and went with the advertising-friendly (More MHz!!!!) P4.
    The Conroe owes most of it's parentage to the Pentium M and through that,
    the Pentium !!!, than it does to the P4. Also, it's more similar to the AMD
    CPUs than it is to the P4.

    The Conroe has a much shorter pipeline than recent Intel CPUs, 14 stages
    instead of the Prescott's 31. Compare that to the (speculated as Intel
    didn't publish AFAICT) 12-14 of the Pentium M, the 10 of the Pentium 3
    Tualatin and the AMD 64's 10-12. Ok, it means that the CPU won't clock as
    fast as those melting moments known as PrescHOTts (until processing
    fabrication gets smaller) but, as we've learned in the last few years, MHz
    isn't everything.

    > Competition is good.


    It cuts both ways. It was competition and bad decisions that "forced" Intel
    to go with the P4 to win the "MHz wars". Maybe if AMD hadn't been quite so
    good and beat Intel to the 1GHz punch Intel would have got to this Conroe
    CPU sooner as a natural progression from the P3 rather than run blindly down
    the dead-end alley that the P4 turned out to be. The only thing Conroe
    inherits from the P4 / Prescott is Netburst.

    But in general, yes, competition is good. It's just a shame (for Intel) that
    they listened to the marketing team instead of the boys in the back room
    over the whole P3/P4 thing. Certainly good for AMD though, allowed them to
    capture a decent market share and ensure that Intel will have strong
    competition for years to come. Until Intel made the P4 blunder, AMD were
    touch-and-go there for a while, could easilly have gone under.

    Good to see that AMD have some serious competition, something they've been
    lacking in the last couple years. I just hope that they got enough toe-holds
    with the big PC assemblers to keep market share now Intel have woken up.

    Cheers,
    --
    Shaun (~misfit~)
     
    Shaun \(~misfit~\), Mar 9, 2006
    #5
  6. Daniel

    Daniel Guest

    Shaun (~misfit~) wrote:
    >
    > But in general, yes, competition is good. It's just a shame (for Intel) that
    > they listened to the marketing team instead of the boys in the back room
    > over the whole P3/P4 thing. Certainly good for AMD though, allowed them to
    > capture a decent market share and ensure that Intel will have strong
    > competition for years to come. Until Intel made the P4 blunder, AMD were
    > touch-and-go there for a while, could easilly have gone under.
    >


    Yeah, best lessons are often learned the hard way. I suppose Intel had
    to lose several million dollars in potential earnings to finally get the
    message (even if it did take a looong time).


    > Good to see that AMD have some serious competition, something they've been
    > lacking in the last couple years. I just hope that they got enough toe-holds
    > with the big PC assemblers to keep market share now Intel have woken up.
    >


    True. I think in terms of mind-share AMD is already well established.
    However, those new Intel chips are scary. Intel is always able to win a
    price-cutting war, but, fortunately for AMD they had the better product.
    That's about to change.
    I hope AMD can come back with something. Not really for their sake, but,
    for us - the consumer.
     
    Daniel, Mar 9, 2006
    #6
  7. Daniel

    GraB Guest

    On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 21:07:05 +1300, Daniel <>
    wrote:

    >Shaun (~misfit~) wrote:
    >>
    >> But in general, yes, competition is good. It's just a shame (for Intel) that
    >> they listened to the marketing team instead of the boys in the back room
    >> over the whole P3/P4 thing. Certainly good for AMD though, allowed them to
    >> capture a decent market share and ensure that Intel will have strong
    >> competition for years to come. Until Intel made the P4 blunder, AMD were
    >> touch-and-go there for a while, could easilly have gone under.
    >>

    >
    >Yeah, best lessons are often learned the hard way. I suppose Intel had
    >to lose several million dollars in potential earnings to finally get the
    >message (even if it did take a looong time).
    >
    >
    >> Good to see that AMD have some serious competition, something they've been
    >> lacking in the last couple years. I just hope that they got enough toe-holds
    >> with the big PC assemblers to keep market share now Intel have woken up.
    >>

    >
    >True. I think in terms of mind-share AMD is already well established.
    >However, those new Intel chips are scary. Intel is always able to win a
    >price-cutting war, but, fortunately for AMD they had the better product.
    >That's about to change.
    >I hope AMD can come back with something. Not really for their sake, but,
    >for us - the consumer.


    They should be migrating to 65nm before the end of the year and one
    would think there would be new designs out before then. They also
    have quad-core coming sometime.
     
    GraB, Mar 9, 2006
    #7
  8. Daniel

    AD. Guest

    Shaun (~misfit~) wrote:

    > But in general, yes, competition is good. It's just a shame (for Intel) that
    > they listened to the marketing team instead of the boys in the back room
    > over the whole P3/P4 thing. Certainly good for AMD though, allowed them to
    > capture a decent market share and ensure that Intel will have strong
    > competition for years to come. Until Intel made the P4 blunder, AMD were
    > touch-and-go there for a while, could easilly have gone under.


    The engineers at Intel expected netburst to scale to 10GHz. They were
    convinced it was the right way to go at the time.

    A whole lot of physical limitations caught up with netburst though.
    Marketing was what was later trying to cover their butts while they
    figured out a new direction.

    As an another aside - if it wasn't for AMD, the only 64 bit stuff coming
    from Intel now would be IA64. Now that was a bigger blunder than
    anything netburst could come up with.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Mar 10, 2006
    #8
    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. anonymous

    Empire Strike Again

    anonymous, Nov 19, 2003, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    1,058
    Consultant
    Nov 21, 2003
  2. SDamien3

    EMPIRE STRIKES BACK alteration/fix?

    SDamien3, Sep 20, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    879
    StevenMcLennan
    Sep 21, 2004
  3. Ramon F Herrera
    Replies:
    28
    Views:
    1,267
    Ramon F Herrera
    Apr 3, 2007
  4. Ramon F Herrera
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    377
    blitz
    May 22, 2007
  5. richard
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    574
    richard
    May 8, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page