GeFX canned?

Martrox, Entropy

I have no doubt you have little or no problems but thats probably bacause you are more product aware than the average buyer.
But, if you took a range of different branded motherboards supporting AMD and a range of Intel chipset mobos the Intel range would have far higher stability and brand wouldn't be such an issue.

 

This is as much of a myth as AMD's performance "lead".

Right now, you buy AMD for two reasons:
1) Its midrange price/performance (which i think even DaveH will admit kicks the crap out of intels)
and 2) the ability to multiplier unlock and OC to the highend performance.

 

... or because FPU performance means a lot to you.

 

lol, that also

 

well if you overclock the FSB even more else you can write poems to that FPU and pray one day it's true potential will come out

 

AMD brought affordable performance to everyone, their high end processors should be marketed at the same 'bloated' price Intel chips are but of course they can't, because everyone wants "Pentium" or the best chip to browse the internet with or the dancing men in space suits or little men from Mars.
Intel with 26 Billion dollars in sales vs AMD's 2 billion and AMD constantly losing money, it will only be a matter of time before AMD folds, then the Intel fanboys can enjoy paying $1000 for a Pentium 5 when it should have been $400.
I remember the 80's, when Intel was making rediculous profit for insane prices for their 'MMX' processors.
1.5 years ago the Intel Fans were quiet, they had nothing to brag about (except paying too much for a X86 processor that does the same thing), the same company that said DDR is inferior and wanted to drop all support. AMD dominated the performance crown, yet AMD gained 1% of market penetration thanks to Michael Dell and Gateway.
Now you watch the Intel Fans bragging about marginal speed increases yet paying so much more...just stupid.

When AMD goes down, so does affordable X86 processing.

 

Actually I couldn't get him to! He still thinks the difference between AMD and intel is something of "cryix-territory" preportion!

I personaly do enjoy a fully pipelined FPU, as I use Folding@Home on all my computers.

 

How about the fact that Intel is just plain overpriced, no matter what price range you look at? I'll never buy another Intel again, so long as they have a competitor, because Intel is just a total rip off (and so is buying the fastest processor available, for that matter, so I really couldn't care less if Intel is 'faster').

I agree with you 100%, these "Intel fanboys" are just ridiculous. It's like being a Microsoft fanboy. "Please sir, could you rip me off some more?"

Bottomline: if you like wasting money, that's your call, but don't brag about it like it makes you somehow superior to those who spend more wisely.

 

OMG I thought I was the only person who saw that version of Oliver Twist!. Perhaps we should ask for a herring!

 

Well as it appears I've truly good-and-derailed this thread, I suppose I might at least respond to some of this:

While I don't agree with the hyperbole of this statement, I completely agree with the sentiment. That's why in the post that started all of this I wrote

To flesh that out a bit: it's a good thing that AMD has managed to reach price parity (on a Quantispeed = MHz basis) with Intel, because if they had to settle for their traditional price structure, AMD would be out of business by now. And that would be very bad for consumers, both because it would lessen price pressure on all x86 chips, and because it would deprive the world of the K8. Quantispeed, as it has been applied to the AXP, is a sham. But as a practical matter, I very much hope AMD will be able to get away with it long enough for a hopefully more accurate use of performance ratings to arise once Hammer hits full stride.

Actually you never asked my opinion on the subject, unless you consider the 2400+ "midrange," in which case I'd say I demonstrated pretty conclusively that AMD's price/performance matchup there is weak at best. (That is, it is significantly slower than a 2.4 GHz P4 on 845PE, but costs ~$40 less; unless I brought in, say, 2.26 GHz P4 results, I'd say it depends where you want to be on the price/performance curve. Definitely no crap kicking at this level, in any case.)

Assuming Althornin defines "midrange" a bit lower than that (as I would), I tentatively agree. Up to about 2000+ or 2200+, the AXP would appear to match up quite nicely with the P4 in terms of price/performance. I can't really be more definitive than that, because it's been a long time since I've seen benchmarks at this performance level, and I've certainly never studied benches of this range of chips paired with today's chipsets and today's software.

If I were putting together a desktop to target this performance range (which I'm not), I would definitely be strongly considering going AMD, although it would take a good deal of research and thought about my exact goals for the system before I chose either way. Let me point out, though, that--contrary to any insinuations of Intel fanboydom y'all might cast at me--all other things being equal I would rather buy AMD than Intel, because I want to contribute to their staying in business, and because in my Corporate Moral Calculus their deceptive marketing of the present is balanced out by Intel's nasty anticompetitive behavior of the recent past. (More generally, watching the Intel-AMD wars very closely for the past 4 years has taught my CMC the sad but true lesson that all companies do bad things when they don't have a competitive product.)

But all other things are not supposed to be equal; AMD is supposed to be the generic brand. As such, they should have a very clear, very substantial lead in price/performance across every market segment they compete in--which they in fact did have 2 years ago. The way it is now, it's like going to the grocery store and the supermarket's generic brand soda costs exactly the same as Coke! Or better yet: a few cents less for 2-liter bottles, and a few cents more for cans! Now, it may turn out that you either really like the supermarket, or really like their soda, or really dislike Coke, in any of which cases you can obviously buy the supermarket brand. But the point is, everyone would agree that that's not the way the generic brand is supposed to be priced.

The Cyrix comment was very clearly and specifically restricted to the performance gap between a 3200+ Barton and a 3.2 GHz (800 FSB) P4. (And I think it implied but in case not: each using their respective best-available chipsets.) It was very obviously not referring to AMD and Intel's entire lineups.

Do you really have a reading comprehension problem or are you rather so insecure that you have to purposely misquote anyone who proves you wrong?

 

Not only that but their products will end up going no where. Say goodby to innovation at that point.

 

LOL! AMD wasn't responsible for bringing low cost x86 computing to consumer markets. They rode the wave like everyone else did.


The Pentium MMX was released in the early to mid 90's.

 

So 20 years from now we'll still be using 3ghz pentium 4's? Come on....

People crack me up...

 

That is not what was meant, and i think you DO know this.
To resort to hyperbole to "win" is shameful.
Without AMD, intel would not be as far along as it is now, and prices would DEFINATELY be higher. I cna remember before the Athlon (classic) came out, and when it came out, and the trend afterwards.


DaveH:
Yes, i would definately define "midrange" to be the AREA around 2Ghz/2000+ - probably stopping at 1.8 or 1.6 (where low end starts) going up to 2400 (where high end starts).
Of course, these are just MY definitions - shit, i run a 1900+ (well, its OCed to 1900+), which is mid/low by my reckoning.
So, lets start with 1.8/1800+: Its not a "few pennies per liter", its much much more.
Current pricewatch prices:
1.8Ghz (socket 478) - $103
1800+ -$57
2.0Ghz (socket 478) - $150
2000+ - $70
2.2Ghz (socket 478) - $164- $175 (depending on bus speed - 400/533)
2200+ - $108
2.4Ghz - $180- $185 (depending on bus speed - 400/533)
2400+ - $148
Seems to me that the athlons of this range are SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper - on the order of 50% of the cost of equivalent intel chips (except at 2200+ and above, where it begins to fall, so that at 2400+ they are "only" 22% cheaper).

As for performance:

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1574&rndr=02102003030055

Accordin to this article:

And yes, thats for northwood core p4's.

All I can say, is that for midrange, AMD owns intel completely - they have a huge price advantage, and a performance one as well. The price advantage starts shrinking as we enter "high end", and the performance lead changes into a deficit.

 

I agree with althornin on this one.

If you care to look back a few years at the price trending of intel CPUs prior to the K6-2 and K7 launches, and their eventual success, you will see a dramatic decline in price. Not only that, but do you honestly think intel would have ramped the p6 architecture so fast (such as the p3 1.13ghz debacle) had they not been having very stressful competition from the AMD athlon? Do you also think that they would have rushed the launch of their still incomplete PIV architecture had AMD not been aggressively pushing its t-bird line up to 1.2ghz and beyond, while the p3 was floundering at 1ghz?

I am sorry, but no company (and for gods sake, especially not intel) is this altruistic.

purely hypothecial, if AMD had never created the k7 architecture and had simply stuck with caches and memories, my guess is that you could easily have picked up a 1.8ghz PIV for X-mass 2002....only it woulda cost you about $900 (which is the price of all high end intel processors at launch during <1996, ie pre K6-2 era), and I'm sure it would have worked wonderfully with its overpriced 800mhz RDRAM, since they would have already phased out SDRAM back in 00'

 

The market wouldn't accept higher prices... Can't anyone see that?

The world is saturated with PC's that still work fast enough as it is. What company would get away with charging 80's prices in the new millenium? You people say if AMD dies this and that will happen, but compared to Intel they have been dead for some time. AMD's Atlon is simply a failing life support system.

How could a company such as AMD ever have a large effect on a company such as Intel? With all this talk of AMD reaching the brink of destruction, how the hell could they represent anymore then a pinhead on Intel's radar?

Your whole ideology of Intel and AMD is hipocritical and flawed.

 

Mulciber, what was going on in the rest of the world during the periods you describe....


What did the dot-com explosion do for computer sales... for all companies across the globe... what usually follows massive increases in volume... price cuts...


Dude, we're getting another dell! Sweeeeet!

QUE Intel Inside sequence.

 

I can't get over people's fasination with david and goliath.


How much of a debacle was the p3 1.13ghz publicity anyway? A huge debacle if you believe Tom...

 

It would have been a huge debacle had the continued to ship faulty processors

 

The p3 1.13ghz was shipped? I didn't even think it was announced....