Intel AMD irony

[Yolner]

Please get back on the short yellow bus and never come back.

 

[AWhackWhiteBoy]

aside from all pointless flaming and babbling, your thread was doomed from the start.

theres no other way to say it,so i'll just say it. your clueless about processor architecture, performance,and most importantly, history.

i could respond to each of the things yout typed and point out why your wrong but its really not worth it unless your open minded to the subject,which you don't seem to be.

 

[Mik3y]

pete, you said that your experiences with intel has always been better then amd. how would you know unless you've had or used an athlon 64. as with comparing cpus, its only logical to compare the mainstream ones out today, such as the athlon 64 and the intel northwood or prescott. y dont you support your theory on how intel is better then amd. i'm not biased on any side, but i do know the facts. currently, amd is stronger in nearly every field except encoding, but besides that, amd is faster in games and in processing for that their hypertransport benefits bus speed transfers which help in fast data processing. names are name. the reason why amd has sse and sse2 is because intel and amd made a trade a bit back. from wut i've heard, intel wanted architectural information on the athlon 64's core as for 64-bit and 32-bit and gave amd the sse2 instructions as a trade. like everyone else said, educate yourself based on facts before you start a flame war, not based on what you want.

 

[viivo]

PeteRoy wants neither a discussion, nor any logical conclusions (as he passes over them to reply to the people who are off-topic.) This is an Intel circle jerk thread that, with a few changed words, would not be out of place in the Politics forum.

It's not worth the poor organisms on your finger tips to type out a reasonable response as fanboys have no capacity for reason when it comes to their precious.

 

[AWhackWhiteBoy]

" the reason why amd has sse and sse2 is because intel and amd made a trade a bit back. from wut i've heard, intel wanted architectural information on the athlon 64's core as for 64-bit and 32-bit and gave amd the sse2 instructions as a trade."

not true. AMD has to license and pay Intel for these patented instruction sets for every core they make just like x86. Intel made x86,and so AMD is still paying for it,as well as all the add on instruction sets. the only reason why Intel even licences these add-ons to AMD is to avoid becoming a monopoly and being brought to court. Intel makes a new instruction set every generation, AMD has to wait, thats why its always a step behind. i'm really not sure how the whole x86-64 thing works. probably still royalites involved.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: AWhackWhiteBoy
" the reason why amd has sse and sse2 is because intel and amd made a trade a bit back. from wut i've heard, intel wanted architectural information on the athlon 64's core as for 64-bit and 32-bit and gave amd the sse2 instructions as a trade."

not true. AMD has to license and pay Intel for these patented instruction sets for every core they make just like x86. Intel made x86,and so AMD is still paying for it,as well as all the add on instruction sets. the only reason why Intel even licences these add-ons to AMD is to avoid becoming a monopoly and being brought to court. Intel makes a new instruction set every generation, AMD has to wait, thats why its always a step behind. i'm really not sure how the whole x86-64 thing works. probably still royalites involved.

AFAIK, AMD and Intel have a large and obscenely complicated cross-licensing agreement -- they both are able to use any instruction sets and technologies developed by the other, although I won't pretend to know how the finances work out. The reason one or the other is usually 'behind' is not that they have to 'wait', per se, but that it takes time to work any new tech into an existing product line, and they don't usually get to see what the competitor is up to until it's largely finished. That, and in the particular case of AMD and SSE, they were pimping their own "3dNow!" technology pretty hard in the AthlonXP days. It never really went anywhere, and a number of major applications now support SSE/SSE2, so they decided to build that into the A64.

 

[AWhackWhiteBoy]

"The reason one or the other is usually 'behind' is not that they have to 'wait', per se, but that it takes time to work any new tech into an existing product line, and they don't usually get to see what the competitor is up to until it's largely finished."

that makes much more sense

i still don't see how they both share information, AMD hasn't exactly contributed anything aside from x86-64. its seems AMD has to keep going to Intel for new stuff.

edit: what the hell does "AFAIK" mean!?

 

[PeteRoy]

AFAIK means "As far as I know".

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: PeteRoy

It is just Intel gave me better performance on the games and applications I use compared to the AMD I've seen.

all we want is proof. every single hardware review website has concluded that A64's are better for gaming. you come along and dispute this without any evidence and are upset that people think that you are full of sh!t.

PROVE IT N00B, or GTFOH. you know what AFAIK means, how 'bout GTFOH.

 

[PeteRoy]

Nick, I am not a "review website", I decide what to use according to my own personal experience, nobody tells you to expect what I say.

I recommend people to use Intel in topics asking what system they should get, it is up to them to use their judgment to decide who they listen to.

And I am not varied with short insults expression.

 

[Mik3y]

like we all keep asking you, could youl tell us why you would recommend people to go wtih intel? i apologize to you if the people in thise forum is rude. many people here hate judgements based on opinions and not facts, and so far, you havent really said much about why intel is the top dog. i'm not trying to be mean here. i'm just curious on how you think about it.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: PeteRoy
Nick, I am not a "review website", I decide what to use according to my own personal experience, nobody tells you to expect what I say.

I recommend people to use Intel in topics asking what system they should get, it is up to them to use their judgment to decide who they listen to.

And I am not varied with short insults expression.

you are telling people to buy prescotts for gaming over A64's without proof. you are telling people that athlon XP's are "inferior processors".

this may sound stupid, but i take pride in being an active member of the GH forums and i try my best to help people to pick out the best system for them. then you come along and spew these outlandish claims, and lies, and are misleading people horribly. you would fit in well at best buy, but not here. either post benchmarks to show me that prescotts are faster at gaming that A64's, and show me that AXP's are inferior, or leave.

there is already a thread in forum issues to try and get you, warned at least, if not banned. i suggest either you shape up or ship out.

 

[PeteRoy]

I didn't violate any of this forum rules.

I would consider the attitude I get from some people here as a forum violation.

 

[jdogg707]

Originally posted by: PeteRoy
Nick, I am not a "review website", I decide what to use according to my own personal experience, nobody tells you to expect what I say.

I recommend people to use Intel in topics asking what system they should get, it is up to them to use their judgment to decide who they listen to.

And I am not varied with short insults expression.

Tell me this, in which games has it been your personal experience that the Intel chips run better/faster than the AMD A64? Please tell me so I can conduct my own test and prove every review I have ever read wrong.

Unless you can substantiate your claims, there is no reason for you to post that Intel is better, regardless of what limited experience you believe you have had. If I compare an AMD 1GHZ CPU to a P4 3.0GHZ CPU, I can give the nod to Intel. But unless I compare an AMD A64 3200+ to a P4 3.2GHZ and find the Intel to be faster, I have not made a fair comparison.

 

[AWhackWhiteBoy]

i understand hes not exactly informed, but the fanboyism in this forum is pretty out of hand.

 

[PeteRoy]

I mainly play Battlefield 1942/Desert Combat, Far Cry and Counter-Strike.

 

[Alkaline5]

Originally posted by: PeteRoy
Nick, I am not a "review website", I decide what to use according to my own personal experience, nobody tells you to expect what I say.

I recommend people to use Intel in topics asking what system they should get, it is up to them to use their judgment to decide who they listen to.

What we're asking is that you give us just one example of your own experience where an Intel CPU outperformed an AMD CPU. Something along the lines of "My P4 did 'something' 3 minutes faster than my Athlon."
Do you think all of the reviews people are showing you are wrong or what?

And I am not varied with short insults expression.

I'm sure none of us expectd that you would be.

 

[Sonic587]

Originally posted by: PeteRoy
I don't know about anandtech, but from my own experience with both AMD and Intel, Intel is always better.

Enough trolling already. You like Intel processors. Whoopdedoo!. They have some great advantages, no doubt there. Just don't come in here spouting off FUD like this. We all know you started this thread to cause a massive flamewar. I mean, I'm sure the thousands of benchmarks on hundreds of websites are all slanted in AMDs' favor, right???:disgust:

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: AWhackWhiteBoy
"The reason one or the other is usually 'behind' is not that they have to 'wait', per se, but that it takes time to work any new tech into an existing product line, and they don't usually get to see what the competitor is up to until it's largely finished."

that makes much more sense

i still don't see how they both share information, AMD hasn't exactly contributed anything aside from x86-64. its seems AMD has to keep going to Intel for new stuff.

I can't say I can point to other instances of Intel completely taking an AMD standard and adopting it, but it seems likely to me that they have acquired at least *some* useful information from them over the last decade. It's just that if, say, they pick something up about improved multiplier logic, or new ways of dealing with clock skew, those things aren't marketed as heavily as flashy new multimedia instruction sets.

Also, as alluded to above, at least part of the original impetus for this agreement was that it makes Intel less of a monopoly in the CPU market, since it guarantees that the other major player (AMD) will not be 'locked out' of any future instruction sets or other changes to the x86 architecture. It could easily be worth it to Intel just for this.

 

[PeteRoy]

Originally posted by: Sonic587

Enough trolling already. You like Intel processors. Whoopdedoo!. They have some great advantages, no doubt there. Just don't come in here spouting off FUD like this. We all know you started this thread to cause a massive flamewar. I mean, I'm sure the thousands of benchmarks on hundreds of websites are all slanted in AMDs' favor, right???:disgust:

Did you even read the first post I made? Does it look like saying AMD is inferior to Intel?

Read from beginning to end

I did not make this topic to start a flame war.

But fear not, as seeing the tone of posters in these forums I'll never make any topic here again knowing what kind of crowd posts here.

 

[jdogg707]

Originally posted by: PeteRoy
I mainly play Battlefield 1942/Desert Combat, Far Cry and Counter-Strike.

Far Cry is definitely faster on the A64, hence the reason they are giving it away with when you buy an A64 CPU/Motherboard Bundle. Counter Strike is pretty much capped at 100FPS on all machines built in the last two years. I do not play Battlefield so I cannot confirm its performance on either platform.

 

[Sonic587]

Originally posted by: PeteRoy

Originally posted by: Sonic587

Enough trolling already. You like Intel processors. Whoopdedoo!. They have some great advantages, no doubt there. Just don't come in here spouting off FUD like this. We all know you started this thread to cause a massive flamewar. I mean, I'm sure the thousands of benchmarks on hundreds of websites are all slanted in AMDs' favor, right???:disgust:

Did you even read the first post I made? Does it look like saying AMD is inferior to Intel?

Read from beginning to end

I did not make this topic to start a flame war.

But fear not, as seeing the tone of posters in these forums I'll never make any topic here again knowing what kind of crowd posts here.

Did you miss this somehow?

I don't know about anandtech, but from my own experience with both AMD and Intel, Intel is always better.

So, YES. You DID say AMD is inferior.

 

[PeteRoy]

I said that as a reply, it wasn't the topic intent to discuss this.

 

[AWhackWhiteBoy]

please,let this thread die.

 

[Sonic587]

Originally posted by: PeteRoy
I said that as a reply, it wasn't the topic intent to discuss this.

I made a mistake posting in this thread. You are beyond any hope.