Cpu war ?

[Herbal Influence 10]

Announced today:

Just another Billion of Euros Intel customers at last have to pay for illegal practises of Intel:

http://www.amd.com/us/press-releases/Pages/amd-press-release-2009nov12.aspx

Remember: For illegal distribution practises they had to pay one billion of Euros to the EU.

This wrongful behaviour is not only a damage to the companies inflicted but also to the end user.

Have fun. And pay.

[Pyronick 21]

The early Athlon 64 CPU's outperformed the entire Pentium 4 line back in 2003.

Intel had to work hard to regain their performance crown. All they did until then was trying to make easy money.

Currently I'm running a Q9650 and prior to that all Intel, but my next CPU/APU will be an AMD.

Why? The next-generation of CPU's will be even more SoC-like (system-on-a-chip), integrating GPU's and interconnect bus (PCI Express) controllers, leaving only the I/O on the "southbridge".

We all know Intel's IGPs suck, whereas AMD's are very good. This could potentially improve performance in combination with a discrete ATI graphics card.

[echo1 0]

To the best of my knowledge, the integrated GPUs on CPUs will be lower-end parts, that's why AMD and Intel's roadmaps show only lower end chips having these integrated GPUs. What would be nice though is some kind of vendor-agnostic version of Hybrid SLI - i.e. when your main Graphics Card is not in operation, it gets turned off and the lower end integrated part takes over.

I'm not sure if it's completely correct to say that Intel had to 'work hard' to take on AMD. The Core architecture is based on the Pentium M which was basically a pimped Pentium 3 with a shitload of cache. Intel could have trashed AMD back in 2003 or 2004, but it wasn't until they had a year of massive losses that the people upstairs started to take the competition seriously. I think the reason why they kept selling those idiotic Pentium 4s was politics - a mixture of the top brass still living in the 'Megahertz Wars' days, and not wanting to compromise the sales of the Itanium...

[Colt45_GTO 10]

i owned but one computer with an intel cpu, the rest i built myself with AMD cpu's and Nvidia graphics cards. i have never had 1 ounce of trouble with AMD they have always done what they said on the box and always a fair few quid cheaper too.

[Pyronick 21]

To the best of my knowledge, the integrated GPUs on CPUs will be lower-end parts, that's why AMD and Intel's roadmaps show only lower end chips having these integrated GPUs. What would be nice though is some kind of vendor-agnostic version of Hybrid SLI - i.e. when your main Graphics Card is not in operation, it gets turned off and the lower end integrated part takes over.

I'm not sure if it's completely correct to say that Intel had to 'work hard' to take on AMD. The Core architecture is based on the Pentium M which was basically a pimped Pentium 3 with a shitload of cache. Intel could have trashed AMD back in 2003 or 2004, but it wasn't until they had a year of massive losses that the people upstairs started to take the competition seriously. I think the reason why they kept selling those idiotic Pentium 4s was politics - a mixture of the top brass still living in the 'Megahertz Wars' days, and not wanting to compromise the sales of the Itanium...

In this case the IGP compliments a discrete AMD graphics card using Hybrid CrossfireX.

Also, the new Fusion processors have a built-in switch/thread dispatcher which forwards FP operations to the stream processors whilst doing int operations on the CPU itself.

About the Core architecture, true. The NetBurst architecture was probably the only reason why AMD reigned supreme during that time.

However, the fact that AMD is behind on Intel's production scales also gives AMD a big disadvantage.

GlobalFoundries might just fix that problem, but that's not a guarantee for success.

[Whiskey_Tango 10]

its just business...business is all about pushing your product as hard as you possibly can

happens regardless of how big the business is but in the case of intel they are huge so you have alot more resources towards trying to sell more....a whole bunch of employees trying to come up with ways to push the product and make themselves look usefull to their superiors instead of just letting the product sell itself

think of how the share holders influence things as well...its a bunch of greedy already rich fucks trying to get richer

business ethics go out the window when alot of money is to be made

[Herbal Influence 10]

Sure you are right, Whiskey.

But it's a BIG difference to accept that or to explicitly point to the things going wrong.

Another thing I found today:

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20091104-723099.html

Edited November 20, 2009 by Herbal Influence

[Whiskey_Tango 10]

i know its a big difference but until greedy people learn ethics its not going to change

too many scam artists...it sucks i know but all the lawsuits and such wont do anything to stop it....they arent on the level of walmart yet but they arent that far off

[echo1 0]

The real evil carried out by Intel was forcing other competing non-x86 architectures out of the market. My favorite example was the Alpha family of processors made by the Digital Equipment Corporation, these were 64bit high performance CPUs that first showed up around the early 1990s. Around 2000, with the promise of Intel's Itanium chips (now often referred to as the 'Itanic'), Compaq, who were now the owners of the design, ceased their work on the Alphas and sold the rights to Intel. Almost 10 years on - guess where some of the great 'new' features of the Core i7 were copied from, and where the engineers they hired to design it originally came from?

I'm always amused when people act like AMD is going to save us with their originality and innovation from Intel. At the end of the day, AMD is just making Intel clone chips. They do an exemplary job of polishing turds and putting lipstick on pigs, but please don't tell me that they offer 'choice'. If anything, they reinforce Intel's monopoly of the market by cementing the ancient, inefficient and power hungry x86 architecture as the only viable chip for most computing applications.

The lack of viable competition is ultimately to do with lack of investment moreso than any technical superiority of what started it's life as a video terminal chip. IBM's POWER stuff is the only one that comes to mind, but not even IBM seem to have too much faith in it - opting instead to use Opterons in their large supercomputers. ARMs will eat into Intel's market share over the coming decade for things like netbooks and phones, but for high end stuff we'll be stuck with the same crap with more extensions hacked on top for the foreseeable future.

Edited November 20, 2009 by echo1

[Pyronick 21]

The real evil carried out by Intel was forcing other competing non-x86 architectures out of the market. My favorite example was the Alpha family of processors made by the Digital Equipment Corporation, these were 64bit high performance CPUs that first showed up around the early 1990s. Around 2000, with the promise of Intel's Itanium chips (now often referred to as the 'Itanic'), Compaq, who were now the owners of the design, ceased their work on the Alphas and sold the rights to Intel. Almost 10 years on - guess where some of the great 'new' features of the Core i7 were copied from, and where the engineers they hired to design it originally came from?

I'm always amused when people act like AMD is going to save us with their originality and innovation from Intel. At the end of the day, AMD is just making Intel clone chips. They do an exemplary job of polishing turds and putting lipstick on pigs, but please don't tell me that they offer 'choice'. If anything, they reinforce Intel's monopoly of the market by cementing the ancient, inefficient and power hungry x86 architecture as the only viable chip for most computing applications.

The lack of viable competition is ultimately to do with lack of investment moreso than any technical superiority of what started it's life as a video terminal chip. IBM's POWER stuff is the only one that comes to mind, but not even IBM seem to have too much faith in it - opting instead to use Opterons in their large supercomputers. ARMs will eat into Intel's market share over the coming decade for things like netbooks and phones, but for high end stuff we'll be stuck with the same crap with more extensions hacked on top for the foreseeable future.

Yes, the downfall of the DEC Alpha was very unfortunate. It was one of the first VLIW-like processors which could easily outperform x86 and PPC.

Seperate FP and int units, just like the upcoming AMD Bulldozer...

If it weren't for Intel, DEC Alpha would probably not only run on Windows NT 4.0 but on all Windows operating systems after that.

CPU's would be pushing FP performance to teraflops, you might not even need a dedicated GPU.

AMD does however give us at least some progression, if it weren't for them we would have MCM motherboards with a thousand chips on them.

If it weren't for AMD, we would still use NetBurst having 1 kW TDPs.

[Herbal Influence 10]

Bad news again for Intel, good news for gamers:

After (!) Intel was punished by Asian and European governmental authorities for illegal distribution practises and had to accept to pay 1 Billion Euros to the EU and about 1 Billion Dollars to AMD, now (!) the US government goes on Intel

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/12/intel.shtm

Quote:

"(....) Intel’s anticompetitive tactics were designed to put the brakes on superior competitive products that threatened its monopoly in the CPU microchip market. (...)"

Remember:

This is not just an abstract behaviour hurting AMD.

Intel tried illegal things not for nothing but to hold high prices up - that's bad for us customers. In Germany they tried illegaly to keep AMD cpus "out of your sight" - to hinder you from free chosing.

My personal view based on the EU verdict.

Edited December 17, 2009 by Herbal Influence

[vilas 477]

Whenever you behave like a fan of Intel bear this in mind:

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/745&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

My personal experience of this was:

In late 2006 I went to the big shops in my big hometown to buy a new PC.

I was informed that AMD cpus do consume much less power while having quite the same and even better performance. You can still find a learned article on that on Tom's Hardware pages.

After I saw only a vast number of "Intel inside" PCs everywhere I asked whether they don't sell AMDs.

"No, we don't."

I had to go to some hideous place to get an AMD PC nevertheless, the "Broadway" was plastered with Intel CPUs.

Many people didn't and don't even know that you can buy something different.

It was like asking for a PC without Microsoft on it. :eek:

Try to find a notebook today without Microsoft! - I know of enterprises, bureaus of free lancers (lawyers, tax accountants) whole cities governments with more than 30.000 PCs like Munich, who eagerly try not to use Microsoft.

And it seems to me that Intel tries hard, even, following the EU Commissions decision, with illegal contracts, to get a monopolist like Microsoft.

you are right

many better software is available but... big concerns rule, popularity, lobby, advertisement etc. make effect on wholesalers

wholesalers are not specialists, they "wanna sell more" , not "sell something better"

the same concerns Office, in many countries you see lobby of Bill Gates agents, even in Police actions vs. "pirates"

while Open Office is better but ... not so know

compare it to situations in some countries where people are nearly forced to use MS

big corporations "win" challenge on public orders in some countries

in country like yours (Germany ?) you have wise government and your public administration as I heard use open-source Linux in some Landen

while "spy" info in MS Windows can be a treat for "national interests" if Windows system sends info to MS

in fact, my informatician from work call it MS Spy

we don't use Vista, we throw it away, although when you buy PC they push it with Windows which is "calculated in price of PC"

thats why i buy PARTS, not whole PC

i connect and build all myself if i want use Linux, i buy VGA, CPU, fan, mainboard, power unit etc.

if i was buying new PC , they would sell me by force Vista too and whole PC would be some money more expensive

i know its a big difference but until greedy people learn ethics its not going to change

heh

like in topic about war or reasons for terrorism

they won't learn, thats why they are greedy

you won't teach psychopath love, you won't teach pathological liar to tell truth, you won't teach egoist to care also about others, you won't teach ignorant to look at proves

it is "other brain"

they have "money centered" brains

business and ethic/honesty are looking like opposite words

Edited December 17, 2009 by vilas

[Pyronick 21]

The legislation and administration offices of the European Union are switching over to open standards. Even big car manufacturers like DaimlerBenz (Mercedes-Benz), BMW Group and VAG (Volkswagen) are using Linux workstations and supercomputers.

Also Intel abuses their monopolist position, which hurts AMD. And AMD has various locations in Germany. And Germany has the biggest population in the EU.

To us Europeans Intel (Microsoft and General Motors aswell) is just a bag of hurt. Not only for the consumer market, but also politically.

[vilas 477]

Germany and Poland are in EU, while we are so different, when you say about administration in EU,.. i am also governmental administration in EU and we... are under "lobby"

they wanted build "e-administration" on Microsoft

Police was forced to take actions on some users that had pirated soft, while they were hunting for someone who has torrent Office, they had no time to hunt for serious criminals

all MsLobby

EU not means "Equal Unification"

in EU there are countries where officer earns 5000 EU and 500 EU, there are countries where you can trust court and countries where you can easy buy "decision" or get in real problems if your opposite bought judgment and people from "Transparency Int." care about "own family members to get good warm job" and people from Helsinki Foundation care about... criminal , if handcuff is not to tight... while not care where someone who have no money cannot get "justice"

your administration goes to Linux, my goes to forcing MS and proposals to use Open Office was rejected

[Spudeater 0]

AM3 CPU's have the memory controler built onto the CPU die and as such require no North Bridge for said task. AM2 CPU's don't have this and require the memory controler on the Chipset that the North Bridge is on.

Yes they do.

The onboard memory controler has been with AMD from back in the AMD XP days.

That function was added to both keep the MB prices lower,remove the northbridge bottleneck and to be part of the Optron dirrect connect function which allows up to 8 physical CPU's to dirrectly transfer information with each other.

This is why movie post production companys use AMD rather than INTEL CPU's and the worlds fastest computer (made by Cray) uses AMD.

The more AMD cpu's interconnected the faster they will outpreform a faster INTEL cpu.

The new 6 core AMD Optron is also the choice cpu for server farms over INTEL.

Now for desktop gamers with 1 cpu it is another story,however after you hit x amount of cpu/gpu cycles it is pointless to go further and paying $1,000+ USD for the top of the line INTEL while a $80-100 USD AMD will do the same job for almost everyone is mostly just for the owners ego.

Edited December 17, 2009 by Spudeater
typos

[echo1 0]

Yes they do.

The onboard memory controler has been with AMD from back in the AMD XP days.

Both of you are wrong. The Athlon 64 was the first to have it, or technically the Opteron. The Athlon XP used a regular FSB design.

[Spudeater 0]

guess where some of the great 'new' features of the Core i7 were copied from

AMD patents...it is part of the contract that allows AMD to use the x86.

Intel's "new" onboard memery controller is an example.

[echo1 0]

Oh, the irony, the irony. I was talking about the DEC Alpha, which also had an onboard memory controller well before the Opteron showed up. Trying reading what I said more carefully. Especially the bit about AMD not making any real contributions to CPU development.

Edited December 17, 2009 by echo1

[Spudeater 0]

@ ch_123...

My bad.

I have had so many systems over the years that I thought my old AMD Barton 3200+ was that way...it has been the best part of close to 2 decades.

I can still recall my first drink however!

It was 67 years ago and vodka.

Edited December 17, 2009 by Spudeater

[cjsoques 0]

Family member is an engineer at AMD...yet I still choose Intel. I would get AMD if there were the following:

A) A clearer brand name and model line that explicitly and without confusion stated how fast it is. I have no idea what AMD processor is better for what and what each one has better and it just makes me run away from them. There are so many and I have no idea what kind to get and how it compares to others. Intel just simply does a better job with that.

B) More AMD motherboard choices. I love the amount of choices available with Intel socket boards. Last time I built my PC (1.5 or so years ago) there were all of 10 choices or so on NewEgg for the AMD cpu I was looking at (not even sure if I was choosing a good one) and over a hundred choices for the Intel CPU I was looking at.

So all in all...

Intel has fewer CPU types but very clear on the power specs of each

Intel has more motherboard choices

When I have had AMD cpu's they were always great, ran cool so the tower was quiet and just ran so fast from my previous computer...AMD just needs better marketing because their products are quite awesome..just not consumer friendly at all

[echo1 0]

The fact that there are more Intel motherboards means absolutely nothing. Most of them are just mediocre... As long as there are good ones (which there are) who cares how many others there are.

And I don't think the branding is confusing either. Phenom II is high end, Athlon II is mainstream. Sempron for budget. Corresponds to Core i3/i5/i7.

[vilas 477]

informaticians (is there such name of profession in English language?) that i know, always tell me - take AMD

and i use it

now i have AMD6000+ and Arma2 works and all works good and less Watts of energy is used by PC

i buy always EE series (energy efficien, 65W max)

[echo1 0]

At the moment, Intel's chips are more power efficient per performance than AMD's by quite a safe margin.

[Whiskey_Tango 10]

heh

like in topic about war or reasons for terrorism

they won't learn, thats why they are greedy

you won't teach psychopath love, you won't teach pathological liar to tell truth, you won't teach egoist to care also about others, you won't teach ignorant to look at proves

it is "other brain"

they have "money centered" brains

business and ethic/honesty are looking like opposite words

i agree 100%, lovely world we live in isnt it

[cjsoques 0]

The fact that there are more Intel motherboards means absolutely nothing. Most of them are just mediocre... As long as there are good ones (which there are) who cares how many others there are.

And I don't think the branding is confusing either. Phenom II is high end, Athlon II is mainstream. Sempron for budget. Corresponds to Core i3/i5/i7.

..It means something to me when I have to make sure that my massive and clunky video card isn't covering up a crucial part of the board that I will need access too. In my experience, I've always found a better fit with Intel motherboards which leads me to an Intel CPU. I don't mean Intel brand motherboard...what I mean is Intel CPU socket motherboards. Never get Intel brand motherboards. I've tried twice, RMA'd twice.

Like, I said. Whenever I upgrade my PC I always go into it wanting to get an AMD CPU...hasn't happened in a decade for one reason or another.