AMD vs. Intel

[martymcfly]

how do youfigure that AMD is more expensive than intel for the same performance?

EDIT:

Lets assume 3.0 = 3000+

 

3.0 = about $182

 

3000+ = about $155

 

hummm

444651[/snapback]

 

yea, and even that isnt true

a 3000+ is better than a 3.0 performancewise. So factor that in and the price/performance ratio improves more. Dont say "Intel is cheaper! a 3.2 is only 200 and a 2.6 AMD is 1000 dollars." There is no comparison.

[guilliam]

yes.. there are more end users of intel.. that pays back to intel's marketing and ads.. amd must have spent little in advertising.. thats why majority of the pc end users only knows INTEL as the manufacturer of procs. almost akin to simple pc end users only knew that there is only "windows" from ms which makes operating system,.. not knowing that there are linux, mac's etc.. good thing fellow forumers here in OCC are not simply contained as "SIMPLE PC END USERS".. just a thought.. (",)

[martymcfly]

it was really annoying when in school, we were making short educational computer movies. I was watching him being filmed as he separated all processors into 2 categories: Intel and non-intel

[Enyce2k9]

intel has always been ahead with their fast Mhz and they did the 800bus crap,omg they suck soo much,runnin out of ideas,i fell for a p4 3ghz ,piece of junk i prefer a 2500+ athlonxp ! ,no offense to u harsh intel users

Edited March 24, 2005 by Enyce2k9

[TheSternMystic]

[RANT]

Intel is a micro-processor (and other hardware components) manufacturer that needs to taught the meaning of the word innovation. In this respect, rival AMD is no better, having produced absolutely nothing original since its creation. Competition is currently so cut-throat that both companies are .-scared of each other, trying to cover their asses from the next big dud (HyperThreading anyone?).

Now that clock-speed mania has finally subsided, both companies are rushing to finalise production of affordable 1st-generation dual-core PCs. A sensible prediction would be that the Intel Smithfield core will be obscenely expensive but will most definitely outperform AMD's dual-core answer (and yes, I do realise that current stats show otherwise). To top off with the proverbial icing on the cake, both companies capitalise on enthusiast hype to market their bloody awful technology which has been sucking . through a straw for the past 10 years (much longer for Intel). Neither of these two giants have the foresight to invest in something more feasible for the 21st century; more specifically, quantum processing.

The companies have tremendous fan-following (most of the fans being utterly screwed in the head) despite their childish one-upmanship which has been going on for seemingly an eternity.

 

Intel released the world's first 64-bit commercial micro-processor, naming it the Itanium. Guess what? It was the biggest piece of steaming crap since Apple's Macintosh OS. AMD has rummaged through Intel's trashbin since the dawn of the company, and has proven to be exceedingly good at sorting through filth, copying everything Intel has created to date. Both idiot-companies are still pushing the 25 year old binary processor architecture, by waging an electron-pushing war.

[/RANT]

[martymcfly]

i agree. Why wont they give some attantion to quantum processing. With only a few thousand atoms, you can use quantum tunneling to process. I am doing a presentaion on this tomorrow. Considering that in 26 grams of silicon, there are 6.023 x 10^23 atoms, a few thousand ions is invisible. I cannot wait. Suppossedly these should be out by the time we reach the limits of silicon.

[HoLoDreaM]

amd is just much more efficient.. ive used an intel 486 33mhz dell w/ windows 3.1 and pentium 1 mmx 233mhz, and a celeron1ghz.. this is my first AMD.. now that i know what im doing... i went AMD.. those 3 comps before were bought for me, and not BY me...

[Mabus]

IMHO Intel deserves some serious respect, regardless of which company currently totes the marginally better performance.

 

Intel produced the 8086 which has given us our standard architecture allowing the industry to evolve with backward compatibility. AMDs first CPU was a reverse engineered Intel 8080, followed by its next three the 8086, 80286, 80386 which were licensed from Intel. When Intel finally no longer required AMD to assist in supplying IBM it ceased to provide AMD with designs (albeit illegally with a 1billion dollar fine from Intel to AMD).

 

AMD produces K5 which fails to compete with the 6x86. From here on all commercial AMD cpus are x86 compatible and are on the x86/ IA32 instruction set. Until finally AMD extends 32bit to 64bit making... IA32-64.

 

Although AMD should be congradulated for AMD64/K8 as a significant redesign of K7, extending IA32 to 64bits isnt all that significant. Intels 8086 16bit CPU (1978) was extended to 32 bits with the 80386 cpu (1986), less than 10 years. Extending to 64bits would not occur for many years later... yet essentially AMD has not demonstrated incredible innovation in simply extending the IA32 instruction set IMHO.

 

Intel over the years has been much more innovative in its cpu designs, albeit without much commerical success. Intel has designed iAPX432, i860, i960, Itanium & Itanium2. All cpus utilizing different core architectures unlike the x86 cpus. However due to the innovation, backwards compatibility is often innadeqaute thus condemning their designs.

 

Intel has also developed MMX, iSSE, iSSE2, iSSE3, HT. AMD has 3DNow!

 

Intel continues extensive research every year. ---TheSternMystic you claim HT to be a dud, yet it will have prepared the way for DualCore. You also want quantum computing... Intel is researching photonic for processors. Is AMD researching any revolutionary quantum/photonic computing?

[FollowerCTO]

If I recall, AMD was a part of Intel that seperated... if this is true, than it is the reason why EARLIER processors, all the way up to the early athlon XPs were about the same in make... until the P4 came out. However, AMD did not copy 64bit from Intel, for intel could not figure out how to seamlessly transfer from 32bit to 64bit in the same instruction set... AMD could, and did. Is this not innovation?

[Mabus]

Here READ... AMD is founded independantly.

http://www.digital-daily.com/editorial/amd-history/

 

Earlier processors are identical becauses AMDs strategy is to improve a product and sell it cheaper... Intels designed product that is.

 

In reality they were the same because IBM, the Military etc wanted more than just one company producing the product they were becoming dependant on.

 

Im not saying AMD64 isnt innovative... Im saying basic idea has been done by Intel before... extending x86. But developments such as IA64 are much much different.

[ICON57]

[RANT]

Intel is a micro-processor (and other hardware components) manufacturer that needs to taught the meaning of the word innovation. In this respect, rival AMD is no better, having produced absolutely nothing original since its creation. Competition is currently so cut-throat that both companies are .-scared of each other, trying to cover their asses from the next big dud (HyperThreading anyone?).

Now that clock-speed mania has finally subsided, both companies are rushing to finalise production of affordable 1st-generation dual-core PCs. A sensible prediction would be that the Intel Smithfield core will be obscenely expensive but will most definitely outperform AMD's dual-core answer (and yes, I do realise that current stats show otherwise). To top off with the proverbial icing on the cake, both companies capitalise on enthusiast hype to market their bloody awful technology which has been sucking . through a straw for the past 10 years (much longer for Intel). Neither of these two giants have the foresight to invest in something more feasible for the 21st century; more specifically, quantum processing.

The companies have tremendous fan-following (most of the fans being utterly screwed in the head) despite their childish one-upmanship which has been going on for seemingly an eternity.

 

Intel released the world's first 64-bit commercial micro-processor, naming it the Itanium. Guess what? It was the biggest piece of steaming crap since Apple's Macintosh OS. AMD has rummaged through Intel's trashbin since the dawn of the company, and has proven to be exceedingly good at sorting through filth, copying everything Intel has created to date. Both idiot-companies are still pushing the 25 year old binary processor architecture, by waging an electron-pushing war.

[/RANT]

456821[/snapback]

 

 

couldnt have said it better myself....i laughed my butt of reading that rant!!! Well said!

[Kyuss]

AMD CAUSED something of a ruckus last night by winning the Computer Trade Show award for Best CPU Manufacturer at a shindig sponsored by Intel.

 

Awards, presented by Intel, were given out throughout the night. However, the Intel lady left the AMD award until last, and walked off the stage rather than present it personally to a jubilant set of chaps.

 

We got some blurry 3am bar-room photos of the award itself, which AMD were said to be delighted with. There's a nice big 'Sponsored by Intel' logo in the corner. How wonderfully ironic.

 

 

Source: The Inquirer