Dear Motherboard Gurus.... tell me if ...

Bottom posting corrected (most people start reading at the top of a
page, it aint 1987
anymore, welcome to the 21st century).
" Intel is so far behind AMD these days "
Where do people come up with such bull****?

Perhaps because an AMD64 processor outperforms and uses a lot
less power than a P4 or Xeon that is clocked 50% faster ?

So let me see here, you're comparing a 32/64bit processor against two
32bit
processors? Why the hell didn't you compare the Athlon XP which has *much*
more relavence?

Why would the AXP be more relevant than a P4HT vs A64 ..
their is not going to be a p4 with the a64 code (yet) .. So does that mean 2
or even 3 more generations down the line if intel is making 32bit processors
then those will still need to be compared to the AXP.

I dont hink that a A64 will beat out a TOP p4 OC however.. But thermally
speaking the a64/opt/a64-fx is a DREAM when it comes to quiet computing (is
why I think dell will eventually make the move).

Intel is far behind AMD in reality.. One could say they are as far as 2
years behind ( more like one major generation ). This isnt because AMD is
just SOOO much better than intel.. It's because intel expected the "64bit"
processor line that amd was making to flop.. So it was 1 bad decision that's
now put them 2 years behind..


And since when did the clock speed have any relavence nowadays...sure, its
clocked 50% slower or whatever, but do you see AMD releasing CPUs with
3GHz
clock speeds? Didn't think so.

"Phil" wrote in message
...

"Rob Stow" wrote in message
...
Homie wrote:

Bottom posting corrected (most people start reading at the top
of a
page, it aint 1987
anymore, welcome to the 21st century).
" Intel is so far behind AMD these days "
Where do people come up with such bull****?

Perhaps because an AMD64 processor outperforms and uses a lot
less power than a P4 or Xeon that is clocked 50% faster ?

So let me see here, you're comparing a 32/64bit processor against
two 32bit
processors? Why the hell didn't you compare the Athlon XP which has
*much*
more relavence?

And since when did the clock speed have any relavence
nowadays...sure, its
clocked 50% slower or whatever, but do you see AMD releasing CPUs
with 3GHz
clock speeds? Didn't think so.


To use your own words, clock speed has no relevance - performance
does. AMD's chips have a superior design that gives them great
performance at about 2/3 the clock speed of a comparable Pentium. Do
I see AMD releaseing 3GHz clock speed chips? They don't have to since
their slow clockspeed chips perform as well or better than a P4. That
is why they use the performance rating. If they could get an Athlon
or Clawhammer to run at a clockspeed of 3GHz the P4 would be left
choking on their dust.

To use your own words, clock speed has no relevance - performance
does. AMD's chips have a superior design that gives them great
performance at about 2/3 the clock speed of a comparable Pentium. Do
I see AMD releaseing 3GHz clock speed chips? They don't have to since
their slow clockspeed chips perform as well or better than a P4. That
is why they use the performance rating. If they could get an Athlon
or Clawhammer to run at a clockspeed of 3GHz the P4 would be left
choking on their dust.

Well, though i buy and support AMD , cause an Intel monopoly would be
catastrophic for cpu prices, we have to speak a bit about truth. If
AMD cpu design was so much superior, then they would be able to raise
the clock frequency without problems.
I believe that in order to gain more processing power, AMD chose the
design complexity way, while intel chose the frequency way. I am very
sure that AMD cpus should have some sort of parallel processing
inside, in order to perform about the same or better than intel cpus
with have much higher frequency. Parallel processing means more
circuits inside the chip , hence more transistors, hence more
difficult to raise the frequency, due to heat , electromatgnetic
interference, e.t.c.

To use your own words, clock speed has no relevance - performance
does. AMD's chips have a superior design that gives them great
performance at about 2/3 the clock speed of a comparable Pentium. Do
I see AMD releaseing 3GHz clock speed chips? They don't have to since
their slow clockspeed chips perform as well or better than a P4. That
is why they use the performance rating. If they could get an Athlon
or Clawhammer to run at a clockspeed of 3GHz the P4 would be left
choking on their dust.

Looked at the numbers again, seems that AMD barton with 512kb has
about the same number of transistors with a with 512kb. Well
even if it is so, this doesnt reveal much about the interconnections
between transistors and in general the internal complexity of the
chips.
Nevertheless If AMD chips arent much complex than Intel ones, then the
failure to operate them at higher frequency is just that AMD chip
factories arent a match to Intel's ones?

"Dimitris" wrote in message
...

To use your own words, clock speed has no relevance - performance
does. AMD's chips have a superior design that gives them great
performance at about 2/3 the clock speed of a comparable Pentium.
Do
I see AMD releaseing 3GHz clock speed chips? They don't have to
since
their slow clockspeed chips perform as well or better than a P4.
That
is why they use the performance rating. If they could get an
Athlon
or Clawhammer to run at a clockspeed of 3GHz the P4 would be left
choking on their dust.

Looked at the numbers again, seems that AMD barton with 512kb has
about the same number of transistors with a with 512kb. Well
even if it is so, this doesnt reveal much about the interconnections
between transistors and in general the internal complexity of the
chips.
Nevertheless If AMD chips arent much complex than Intel ones, then
the
failure to operate them at higher frequency is just that AMD chip
factories arent a match to Intel's ones?

AMD's ability to get as much or more power from a chip that runs at
2/3 the clock speed of an Intel must say something for a better
design. Perhaps not.

(Dimitris) wrote in message m...

To use your own words, clock speed has no relevance - performance
does. AMD's chips have a superior design that gives them great
performance at about 2/3 the clock speed of a comparable Pentium. Do
I see AMD releaseing 3GHz clock speed chips? They don't have to since
their slow clockspeed chips perform as well or better than a P4. That
is why they use the performance rating. If they could get an Athlon
or Clawhammer to run at a clockspeed of 3GHz the P4 would be left
choking on their dust.

Looked at the numbers again, seems that AMD barton with 512kb has
about the same number of transistors with a with 512kb. Well
even if it is so, this doesnt reveal much about the interconnections
between transistors and in general the internal complexity of the
chips.
Nevertheless If AMD chips arent much complex than Intel ones, then the
failure to operate them at higher frequency is just that AMD chip
factories arent a match to Intel's ones?
I beleive not. Propably the signal paths arent as simple as in Intel's
chips, thus problems like delay times, signal travel distances e.t.c
force lower frequency for stable operation.

"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" wrote in message .net...
"Dimitris" wrote in message
...

To use your own words, clock speed has no relevance - performance
does. AMD's chips have a superior design that gives them great
performance at about 2/3 the clock speed of a comparable Pentium.
Do
I see AMD releaseing 3GHz clock speed chips? They don't have to
since
their slow clockspeed chips perform as well or better than a P4.
That
is why they use the performance rating. If they could get an
Athlon
or Clawhammer to run at a clockspeed of 3GHz the P4 would be left
choking on their dust.

Looked at the numbers again, seems that AMD barton with 512kb has
about the same number of transistors with a with 512kb. Well
even if it is so, this doesnt reveal much about the interconnections
between transistors and in general the internal complexity of the
chips.
Nevertheless If AMD chips arent much complex than Intel ones, then
the
failure to operate them at higher frequency is just that AMD chip
factories arent a match to Intel's ones?

AMD's ability to get as much or more power from a chip that runs at
2/3 the clock speed of an Intel must say something for a better
design. Perhaps not.
Yes and no. One could say that Intel's ability to raise the clock
frequency at higher numbers indicates a more healthy chip design. I
believe that answer lies inbetween, that is amd clever and possibly
more complex design gives better perfomance at lower frequency, yet
intel simple design allows to raise the frequency in order to get that
high perfomance. There is a trade off between frequency and design
complexity. Intel chose the frequency side while amd of the design
complexity.

Do you suppose patents have anything to do with it?

Forrest

Motherboard Help By HAL web site:
http://home.comcast.net/~hal-9000/


On 26 Apr 2004 23:29:37 -0700, (Dimitris)
wrote:

"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" wrote in message .net...

snip

Intel chose the frequency side while amd of the design
complexity.

"- HAL9000" wrote in message
...
Do you suppose patents have anything to do with it?

Forrest


no

- HAL9000 wrote in message . ..
Do you suppose patents have anything to do with it?

Forrest


Tell me more.