Has the AMD PLATFORM been outclassed for good? (***NO FANBOYS***)

[Megatomic]

I feel that I am a dedicated AMD user (and not what is considered a fanboy either) and I have some concerns that have cropped in the past month or so. So, I figured I'd start a thread for the serious among us (hence the ***NO FANBOYS*** disclaimer in the title) to discuss the disparity between the the most recent AMD and Intel platforms.

I just invested in what is considered to be a very modern AMD platform (nForce2/Tbred "B") and it performs very well. I like it a lot. But I have read with much interest and mounting sadness many Canterwood reviews in the past 3 days. IMO the Canterwood chipset/P4 800MHz FSB platform completely outlasses the latest and greatest AMD has to offer. There is just no way an AMD Barton 3000+ on the best nForce2 board with the best memory available (Corsair PC3500 dual channel mode) can compete with say an Abit IC7-G with a 3.06GHz P4 with Hyperthreading running the same Corsair PC3500 in dual channel mode.

What I want to know is why has there been sooo little innovation on the AMD side of the fence? And is the Hammer going to save the day? Will the Hammer be available with similar pricing and offer the explosive performance that the Canterwood/P4 800 systems are offering TODAY? I wish to all that is holy that AMD would reconsider delaying the Hammer.

Your thoughts?

 

[touchmyichi]

I feel amd has been holding back a whole lot. Look at the barton 3000+. It was only 2.167 ghz. It should of been running at 2.38, I think it was completely unacceptable for them to give it extra 'PR points' just for the addition of more cache. At that speed the 3000+ could probably beat a 3.06 and be competitive w/ a 3.0 w/ 800 fsb. Thats not what amd is about though. For us amd is about the 1700+, we're talking processors that can reach 2.4 ghz and crush most p4's at that speed for 50 bucks. Nothing from intel can do that. Thank god for nvidia for saving AMD too. The nforce 2 gave AMD a whole lot.

 

[mof0]

Okay, AMD is a great company. not innovative, but great. why? Because i can build a great system and spend the extra $50 i would have spent on a similar performing P4 and put it towards something else. Intel is much more innovative with their design of the technology and even the cpu chip itself. but they have to spend way too much on R&D and end up with an expensive product. And although most Do it yourselfers buy AMD, they are still the little guy in CPU's and it's fun to root for the little guy.

 

[eclectro]

Yeah, it looks like they better start making hand calculators now.

 

[mechBgon]

Remember to take the benchmark results with a grain of salt Look at the benchmarks here and then on the next page after. Ah so, grasshoppah... (the point being, they're quite contradictory!)

Intel has SSE2 as a distinct advantage and some benchmarks are always going to reflect that in a P4-versus-AthlonXP comparison... look at the various Lightwave benchmark results as an illustration. It will be interesting to see if AMD's SSE2 implementation levels the benchmarking field when Hammer arrives.

Personally, the price of the P4C800 (link) is enough to pretty much make an apples v. oranges situation out of this. $280 is pretty steep, that's almost three times the price of an 8RDA+. Hopefully it will come down to something like $190 after the "new" factor abates. Personally, I'd spend that money elsewhere, like on... (YES, I'M GOING TO SAY IT AGAIN) a nice shiny Cheetah 15k.3 hard drive!

 

[Vette73]

That and AMD has their Barton 3200+ running at 200Mhz FSB coming out soon. And most benchmarks that Intel wins by a large amount are for programs 90+ % don't even use, like someone was saying before SSE2, something the Athlon 64(Hammer) has.

But AMD still leads very largly in the Business one, and that represtents something that 99% of users do.

 

[oldfart]

People dont play games and do media encoding? Funny, I use them all the time. I guess I'm in that 10% along with most other people. BTW, I use a lot of office apps as well. AMD has to play catch up pretty quickly, or they will be in trouble. Prescott is out at the end of the year. That will only make it worse.

Also, not everyone buys overpriced Asus boards. There are other (IMHO better) choices available. The i865s will also be out soon which will be more affordable.

 

[DieHardware]

Originally posted by: touchmyichi
I feel amd has been holding back a whole lot. Look at the barton 3000+. It was only 2.167 ghz. It should of been running at 2.38, I think it was completely unacceptable for them to give it extra 'PR points' just for the addition of more cache. At that speed the 3000+ could probably beat a 3.06 and be competitive w/ a 3.0 w/ 800 fsb.Thats not what amd is about though. For us amd is about the 1700+, we're talking processors that can reach 2.4 ghz and crush most p4's at that speed for 50 bucks. Nothing from intel can do that. Thank god for nvidia for saving AMD too. The nforce 2 gave AMD a whole lot.

Well said.

 

[oldfart]

Thats not what amd is about though. For us amd is about the 1700+, we're talking processors that can reach 2.4 ghz and crush most p4's at that speed for 50 bucks. Nothing from intel can do that

Unfortunately, $50 CPus are not what AMD needs to sell to make money. They need to sell more high end CPUs.

Thank God for nvidia for saving AMD too. The nforce 2 gave AMD a whole lot

Freedom from the VIA junk was the best thing that could have happend to AMD.

 

[Killrose]

AMD has lost the last two rounds of the fight (or there abouts). To say they have lost for good? no. The high end and power users are going to be in the Intel camp thats for sure, but the budget minded enthusiast crowd are pretty solid AMD users for the most part, and home computer users are buying lots of AMD, and probably lots more with nForce2 IGP chipsets soon.

I don't know the extent of the new 800MHz fsb CPU problem, but it has got to be causing a delay, and that is never a good thing.
The new Intel tech is definately impressive. And AMD had best be able to get Hammer out soon because the performance door has swung wide open and Intel just walked in.

 

[magomago]

I think it moves in cycles....We had Intel dominate up to the Athlon when both were at a dead heat- then AMD pulled away with its Athlon XPs and Intel has made a resurgence since like 2.4ish ghz...now I'm expecting Intel to dominate till Hammer comes out and then I expect AMD to be "taking the cake" so to say from Hammer launch till Tejas where it'll probably heat up again and be tied....and then Intel will win.


And yeah, though I love my Tbred (its a A but it can't go pay 1750Mhz ) A AMD does need to sell higher end CPUS (i've seen a LOT more 3.06s here than 3000+s or 2800+s)

that and I think amd made a bad decision with the Barton - I have to agree it should've been 2.3ish Ghz rather than that PR style...Then I thikn people wouldn't be immediately counting out AMD when it comes to top of the line CPUS (and its true...if we are going top of the line rarely do people consider AMD even though the Barton is only slightly behind the 3.06)

The P4 core has gone numerous improvments (3.06 of today vs 1.5Willamette... : ) yet you don't see Intel doing that

 

[floccus]

OMG, this thread has such potential to piss me off... but I'll try to keep control.

Its a fact that Intel is the dominant chip maker on the market. It is also true that the P4 is much better for a gaming system due to its architecture. This does not mean, however, that Intel is better than AMD. The two have played a big game of russian roulette. You're kind of comparing apples to oranges here. Both are fruit, and thus have mass appeal. But you don't use oranges to make an apple pie. What I mean by that is, you have to choose the chip for what you want to do. A P4 will be the better gaming choice, an Athlon is better for value and business apps. This means that different benchmarks will declare a different winner. Since most of you are undoubtedly gamers, you'll of course desire the P4's performance. Those of us that need to do other things than play games most of the time want an Athlon.

As for the Hammer lines... the Opteron is AMD's biggest concern right now. They not only are trying to re-introduce 64bit computing on a large scale (if you wish to call Itanium a large scale release), but are facing the same situation that Apple currently faces. Too many people only understand Mhz and nothing else. The Opterons will be running around 1.8Ghz, well below the current mark of the P4, but early testing has shown that it has outperformed the P4 handidly. Even in gaming, reviewers have seen amazing marks that beat current P4s. Ok, so an Opteron can beat a current P4, what about the future? Frankly, I don't know, and neither does anyone else. AMD is hopng that the Hammer line ushers in 64bit computing for good. What then? Well then Intel is kind of screwed since they'll need to develop a chip for that sector. So lets all wait and see and then talk about this in 6 months.

 

[mechBgon]

SeekingTao, I guess I look at it this way: the existence of faster computers doesn't make yours any slower. You didn't buy a cutting-edge CPU to start with, because you were after the best value for your money, right? And has i875P changed that? It doesn't really look like it.

If Hyperthreading gets down into the sub-$200 CPUs and i865 results in sub-$150 motherboards, then maybe it will start to seem otherwise, but for now...

 

[AMDBOY]

Tom halfhill's column(?) with regard to AMD teaming up with IBM. IBM has been using SOI(silicon on insulator) technology for a few years now. Amd wants their experience. The research & development costs big bucks. That's the bottom line to be able to compete: having the money to stay in the game. I hope AMD can continue to keep up the good work.

 

[dannybin1742]

but are facing the same situation that Apple currently faces. Too many people only understand Mhz and nothing else. The Opterons will be running around 1.8Ghz, well below the current mark of the P4, but early testing has shown that it has outperformed the P4 handidly

yeah but i'd still never buy and apple even if it was X% faster than a p4

 

[Elcs]

As far as I am concerned, as long as AMD produces a chip that can outperform an equally priced Intel chip in the applications Im concerned with (games), Im not too bothered about the really high end of the table.

The way my life goes, I doubt I'll ever have the money or ever want to spend the money to get THE BEST at 1 point in time, so Id be going for something cheap that performs well.

To be honest, I think AMD will seriously struggle until it gets its 64-bit OS support from MS. I think the Hammer should put some dents in the competition. Hope the chipset doesnt disappoint as I think this chip has the potential to do another Slot A Athlon Vs PIII scenario.

My opinions.

 

[Megatomic]

Originally posted by: mechBgon
SeekingTao, I guess I look at it this way: the existence of faster computers doesn't make yours any slower. You didn't buy a cutting-edge CPU to start with, because you were after the best value for your money, right? And has i875P changed that? It doesn't really look like it.

If Hyperthreading gets down into the sub-$200 CPUs and i865 results in sub-$150 motherboards, then maybe it will start to seem otherwise, but for now...

I agree completely. Believe me, I love my computer. I just feel like AMD has shown us little innovation lately. I look forward to Hammer a lot. Actually, June 5th I will be going to the AMD Tech Tour 2003 stop in Norfolk, VA where hopefully I will get to see Hammer and Opteron systems in action. I hope that I leave the show with a whole new perspective on this matter.

I think that basically I am feeling jealous. The newest Intel boards are very "sporty" and appear to offer a big performance improvement over the best Intel was offering just prior to their release. Even the nForce2 didn't offer that kind of increase over what was offered prior to its release. Or did I miss something? I am not too far ahead of where I was with my KT333 board.

 

[azkiwi]

Originally posted by: SeekingTao
I think that basically I am feeling jealous. The newest Intel boards are very "sporty" and appear to offer a big performance improvement over the best Intel was offering just prior to their release. Even the nForce2 didn't offer that kind of increase over what was offered prior to its release. Or did I miss something? I am not too far ahead of where I was with my KT333 board.

If you are not too far ahead of your KT333 its probably because your computer is already way ahead of the apps. Unless you are a hard core gamer I doubt there is much to be gained in the average world from the latest incremental speed increases. Many of us ATers have been upgrading just because we like to, not from need.

The people that really keep the doors open at AMD (business customers) have not been buying much during the economic slump of the last 6-12 months, so AMD has not been cranking out new products in the face of slack demand. As buying picks up again, their lower priced product which is an excellent buy for business apps, will be well positioned against Intel. Cost conscious businesses might well realize that they don't need an 800mHz Canterwood for an extra $200 per unit. And of course they won't be overclocking their Tbred 'B's either.

 

[thedazman67]

I think AMD are watching Intels releases very closely maybe even testing them for their selfs see if they can come up with nething better or maybe a new feature that may be incorporated into the hammer that intel has yet to think off. The hammer might end up being like nvida with there fx GPU which was overshadowed by Ati with there 9800 pro. the same thing could happen with AMD there hammer release could be overshadowed with intels much anticipated Prescott core. entry level clock speeds for the hammer don't look good 1.3GHz i have seen on a beta system running 64bit windows perforance just about beats a 2GHz P.4 B. why don't AMD have SSE2 in there chips they got everythin else apart from that. ne way while intel continues to ramp up the clock speed to beyond 3GHz looks like AMD a persuing the 64 bit computing route rather than raw performance.

Thedazman

 

[aircooled]

Personally I have no preference. I use what's affordable and fast. In the past the Celeron held that reign, but now I use AthlonXP for my own system.
Benchmarks may say differently, but my most recent builds are both AMD 2100+ and several P4 2.8 's and honestly I cannot "feel" the difference (and the 2100+ is much less expensive than the P4).

As long as AMD can stay close to intel in performace with similar price ratio's, then AMD will have a good future.

 

[beenlurkingforyears]

A couple of additional points to keep in mind: AMD gives the better 'bang for the buck' and the competition between AMD and Intel has kept the prices down. (I don't want to think about what we'd be paying for CPUs if the competition was like the OS market!)

By buying AMD I get great performance, pay less, and do my part to make sure there is healthy competition.

(Full disclosure: I own stock in AMD, Intel, and MS ;-)

 

[SpideyCU]

Originally posted by: mof0
Okay, AMD is a great company. not innovative, but great.

I don't agree with that sentiment. Well, not completely that is. I feel that the fact that AMD can get comparable performance to Intel's processors at a fraction of the raw clock speed certainly smells like "innovation". As for other comments in this thread, while I agree that Intel and AMD will go back and forth as they have done in the past, I wouldn't be surprised in Intel is in the lead greater majority of the time. The sheer size of the company and the resources available to it are not to be taken lightly.

These next few months will be interesting.

 

[CraigRT]

I love AMD.. I think they're a good company.. ALWAYS been satisfied with their CPU's and even the chipsets that support them.

I totally support a price raise on their CPU's if that's what it requires to keep them a float... computing just wouldn't be the same using only Intel... right now I have a P4 2.4B I paid $100 more than I would have liked and the performance is lackluster compared to the AMD... I'm gonna sell this setup and get my AMD back I think. I'd pay what this P4 is worth for an equivalent XP CPU cause I know it's just as good if not better.

Long live AMD

 

[touchmyichi]

For 200 bucks for amd you get a epox nforce 2 mobo, an athlon 1700+, and 256 of ddr 400 ram. With that setup, you're talking about hitting speeds of up to 2.5ghz, easily outclassing any p4 sold at many times the price and you get to enjoy sound blaster quality audio. AMD just has such great deals.

 

[render]

AMD MP chipset is as dead as it could be. no 333Mhz. no chipset update.