AMD is German, ATi is canadian. Apple may have a "64-bit" cpu, it is not fully 64 bit, it just can address some 64 bit calls and such. AMD is doing fine, and by Febuary, they will have a monster of a CPU out. Wile Intel will have a hotplate for a CPU. AMD is about to do better then they have in years.
i still dont like AMD, and for all the people who say its better for gaming, you stand to be corrected, in all the pc magazines ive ever read, "In our tests the AMD performed better in the business apps becuase of its shorter pipeline architecture, while the P4 performed better at gaming and more challenging items becuase of its larger cache" and the whole 64 bit thing wont be worth anything until the progs are actualy made for 64 bit. but AMD is better for OC.
"in all the pc magazines ive ever read, "In our tests the AMD performed better in the business apps becuase of its shorter pipeline architecture, while the P4 performed better at gaming and more challenging items becuase of its larger cache""
"in all the pc magazines ive ever read, "In our tests the AMD performed better in the business apps becuase of its shorter pipeline architecture, while the P4 performed better at gaming and more challenging items becuase of its larger cache""
Looks like you read ONE magazine to me, unless you just made that quote up. Whenever there's a tech question on the boards you answer, and I'll be gosh darned if every time you don't say something kinda dumb.
ViperGlyph: If AMD processors had anywhere near the same power (and price tag) as Intels i think they would severly out perform them in not just business based apps. They perform at an incredibly close level with a few things to consider- Intel has the superior technology but isn't taking it anywhere. AMD is using a 0.13 micron process which limits them far greater than intel who is developing smaller process- it gives them a great edge in clock speeds. AMD is getting maximum potential out of their budget core.
Intel has the cache, the fsb, the clock, and the chipsets (which some people seem to forget) and hell man, they ain't doing much better than AMD performance wise.
All hands go up to AMD who is developing a realistc processor who people such as i can afford. i being 17, in high school and only able to hold a job at inconsistent times. I bought my first AMD in the thunderbird era and i haven't looked back.
Ohh and to all people who think the AMD 64 doesn't hold up- for an entry level CPU with not even a confirmed format nor any strong chipsets, i think it's doing pretty well.
What idiot said that quote? One can just as easily say Intel doesn't stand a chance. Mac's have always had an edge over PC's in some way (be it performance, price tag or 'touch self' value) but hey, that doesn't mean jack. No one's buying them?
No doubt there's speeeling mistakes, moral injustice and byast in that post, but bite me, it's early in the morning and it's sunday :P
"You dumb assholes, I'm a mental patient, I'm supposed to act out!"
When the Athlons first came out they outperformed Pentium offerings quite convincingly . . . . . . . it's been back and forth for quite awhile. I'd love to see some of the numbers for the upcoming AMD64 desktops.
id say teh AMD is better for gaming because most gamers i know build their own pcs, so they buy AMD because its cheaper. i should know, cause i am one and i have one.
Hmm, $600 for a Pentium 4 processor that pulls 250fps in UT2k3 benchmark, or..$90 for a AMD XP cpu, overclocked VERY simply, to get 235-240 fps in UT2k3 benchmark. You decide.
I dont care about shaving off 5 seconds off my load time for business apps, they load quick as shit as it is (check profile for specs on my rig). I can handle waiting a few extra seconds, in order to keep my bank account active :p
:I'd walk a million miles for your love, I'd walk a million more for that little thing you do with your tongue :
To those who said the P4s win because they had the bigger cache...that may have been true, until now. The new AMD64 has 1 MB of on-chip cache. And now it has the SSE2 instruction set, which was the only other thing the Intel chips had on AMD.
Boogieman man, when i have kids I'm going to look at what they're drawing Boogieman and go "MAN, THATS LEET KIDO!" Boogieman "Upload that shit to the fridge!"
i like all this crazy talk about qubits and quantum comuters, because it makes me laugh to think about someone of some future generation eventually reading this post and laughing his ass off...! :)
_______ ... and the men who went to the moon - god bless them - they did it with no mouse, a plain, text-only, black and white screen and with a computer that had only thirty-two KiloBytes of RAM... those were the times...
ya, "we're creating the new astro-pentium that uses sub-space quantum rays to increase productivity by up to 54,323,857*234,432 gigaflops. this thing will eventualy be able to create spacial warps into other dimentions if not properly shielded with a copper heatsink. oh btw, those mice are purely ornimental."
first of all lets clarify something here. both amd and intel are american companies. intel is based in callifornia and amd is based in texas. amd simply has a big fab in dresden germany Shi_No_Ryuu_XI.
*rant*
ViperGlyph in the case of the athlon64 3200+ out performing a P4 3.2ghz it all comes down to how the chip is designed. this is the same thing when comparing any cpu. clock speed is only important to a braindead user. as colossus72 said "It's not how many cycles per second, it what gets done per cycle."
again ViperGlyph "the whole 64 bit thing wont be worth anything until the progs are actualy made for 64 bit." you couldn't be more wrong. you can do some limited 64bit computing on a 32bit chip using emulation ie the intel approach 2x32bit int = 64bit. w/ the athlon64 and the G5 architecture you don't need this, even in 32bit mode. on top of this there are pleanty of apps that are 64bit ready, that is unless my mind is playing tricks on me and windows 64bit extentions is a figment of my imagination.
Shi_No_Ryuu_XI the G5 is very simmilar to the athlon64 becuase they both emulate 32bit processing and they both are fully 64bit unlike some other chips like say intels Itanium (psst ViperGlyph there's a pos for you, they've only sold double digist worht of these) which is only 64bit. please don't slag the G5 this is one of the best platforms there are in terms of price/preformance no mater what you do.
You'll notice that the P4 outperforms the Athlon in every category except for price. If you want to match price and performance, you could get a slower P4 (like 2.8 or 3.0) and still outperform an Athlon. I pretty much believe that in every situation you get what you pay for. For the same money, I believe the P4 is better. I don't much care about benchmarks. My work PC that I'm on now is sickeningly fast - dual 2.8 Xeons, 2 GB DDR, 2 36 GB SCSI in RAID 0, etc. I like it infinitely better than the G5 sitting two computers down. However, the G5 outperforms most everything in terms of benchmarks.
It's true that it's not the clock frequency, and rather what gets done per cycle. You'll see an actual difference like this with the G5 and Sun Blade machines, which are completely different architectures than the Intel and AMD processors. The big-endian machines (Sun and AMD) have lower clock rates but still have good performance. The little-endian machines (Intel and AMD) have higher clock rates. With this, the main issue becomes datapath and instruction issuing. This is limited greatly, and AMD would do better to actually try to improve their core frequencies. They do have good bus frequencies and cache sizes, but that's not really an adequate substitute. In essence, you're taking from one hand and giving to the other.
Just my two cents. Oh, and never ever buy the current Intel P4. It's always overpriced. The second-best model is always the top of the line option for me, since the newest one is always overpriced by at least a hundred bucks.
Aligning yourself with a brand like that is so.....not rational. They don't care about you man, they just want your dough. That's true of any company.
Spend your dollar on the CPU that gives you the most bang for the buck. if Intel was making good chips at good prices, i'd buy 'em. In fact i just did buy a Xeon based machine, because it was a great deal.
But unless things change, I'll be snagging a Athlon64 next time I'm looking.
yeah that is true, never buy the latest intel chip. after about 6-7 months they will in price a little and then when a newer version or model comes out the price falls like crap, but not nearly as low as AMD.
and yeah flint, wrong chip comparison, and i wanna see what its like when the P5 comes out. but im still leaning on the Intel side of the hockey arena.
ClearSpeed Announces CS301 Multi-Threaded Array Processor to Deliver High Performance Computing and Power Efficiency October 14th, 2003
Highest Floating Point Performance Chip Executes Complex Mathematical Applications in a Fraction of the Power and Time.
SAN JOSE, Calif., October 14th, 2003 -- ClearSpeed Technology, a leading provider of high performance, low power chip-based solutions, today announced the ClearSpeed CS301, a multi-threaded array processor that enables dramatic improvements in performance and power consumption for intensive floating point applications. At over 25 GFLOPS peak performance, the new chip provides more than twice the processing speed of competitive products. At 10 GFLOPS per Watt, power consumption is also twenty times more efficient. As a result, the CS301 delivers up to a ninety percent reduction in purchase price and running costs, making high performance computing affordable and available to companies of all sizes.
“With conventional processor design, increasing performance has tended to come with real penalties in power consumption and heat dissipation, to the point where computing cannot keep up with the demands of today’s emerging applications and rapidly increasing volumes of data,” said Tom Beese, CEO of ClearSpeed Technology. “The CS301 is designed specifically to meet those needs with high performance, power efficiency and full programmability in C combined into a single chip. The CS301 is the first in a family of ClearSpeed microprocessors that we believe will challenge present day thinking by creating a world where scientists, bio-informaticians, engineers and content creators alike can have access to high performance computing anywhere, anytime.”
The CS301 is based on a multi-threaded array processing (MTAP) architecture and includes 64 processing elements, 384 Kbytes of on-chip SRAM and I/O ports interconnecting through ClearSpeed’s ClearConnect® bus. Each processing element has its own floating point units, local memory and I/O capability, making the CS301 ideally suited for applications which have high processing or bandwidth requirements. The ClearConnect bus is a packet switched network that provides high bandwidth and low power consumption, supporting multiple concurrent transfers giving even higher aggregate bandwidth.
As a result, complex mathematically based applications such as, computational biology and drug discovery, digital content creation, nanotechnology development, scientific research and financial modelling can now be executed in a fraction of the time.
I work with a lot of people in the chip design industry - my research group is focused mainly on low power design and I've never heard of ClearSpeed. Something that's twenty times more power efficient would make huge waves.
Besides, even Slashdot and the Wired article said it was "soon to be in prototype." That means those numbers if anything are based on software simulations. As somebody with experience in that area, I can tell you that software simulation results are very inaccurate. I would like it to be true, but until something more concrete comes out I'm not buying into it.
