Are AMD defeated ?

[FatRakoon]

That shouldn't be the case, must be something wrong with your installation of Windows or your motherboard drivers.

No, its been fairly reliable across all my AMD and Intel setups.

I must point out as I kept trying to before, that under normal use, this just was never an issue, but under extreme use, the AMD just kept chugging along.

Read my post propery, I said I was fed up with AMD back then not now, my reason was because they led the enthusiast market with Athlon 64, they charged a premium which I fealt took the P.

Before Athlon64 when intel led, they were tarred with the same brush I agree, but I was saying that I liked intel at the moment because their chips are fast and they are cheap, thats all.

Ok, I accept what you are saying... I have double-backed and re-read it, and I can accept that I read it incorrectly.

That is rubbish I think

Say what you like.

I did some tests ( Extreme ones I admit ) and found some interesting results. Many others did similar tests and found similar results, and since then, there has been dozens of Professional bodies also running similar tests and still finding the results the same as my own.
I got fed up before in pointing people to the many many web pages that also show similar results so Im not going to bother wasting my time this time round.

Besides... If the Intel was THAT much better than AMD, then why are Intel to be taking up AMDs ideas on a lot of things and implimenting them into their own CPUs to regain some of the speed that AMD have over the intel in certain areas?

 

[Davey D]

Dont forget that AMD dont just make processors for desktops & servers. they make chips for lots of other devices too, so they have money coming in from other channels too

 

[Bleek]

They have a cashcow in memory chips (flash device level).

The outlay for ATI was huge and will hurt for some time, ATI does make them a profit and therefore it's a long term investment which eventually will turn good. Unfortunately in the mid term that is crippling AMD's R&D budget and to certain extent spiralling their borrowing upwards.

Ultimately AMD are still strong where it matters.

 

[snowdog]

Say what you like.

I did some tests ( Extreme ones I admit ) and found some interesting results. Many others did similar tests and found similar results, and since then, there has been dozens of Professional bodies also running similar tests and still finding the results the same as my own.
I got fed up before in pointing people to the many many web pages that also show similar results so Im not going to bother wasting my time this time round.

Besides... If the Intel was THAT much better than AMD, then why are Intel to be taking up AMDs ideas on a lot of things and implimenting them into their own CPUs to regain some of the speed that AMD have over the intel in certain areas?

I'm not fighting that, I'm saying I think there's a different reason because according to benches Intel has a faster Ram latency than amd's and the L2 cache latancy on an a64 is only 0.1 ms faster ( compared to 2 ms approx difference between netburst cpu's and a64's), unless the Lavalys Everest L1, L2 and RAM: Read, write, copy and latency benchmarks are lying.

I know what you've tested as I renember threads from ages ago about it, but I myself don't have an Amd in my personal computer so I didn't really compare, my dad on the other hand has an AMD x2 4200+ for own use, so might test it myself when I'm bored but tbh I'm not that bothered, I never had a problem with gaming while defragging 4 or 5 hdd's and converting a movie on low priority in the background, even back when I had a pentium D.

Intel are just trying to improve their cpu's at a guess, to be an even tougher compedator.
Just hope the intregrated ram controller doesn't go at cost of compatibility, my dad's amd pc isn't fond of using 2 or more different types & speeds of ram, while on his old intel pc he had it running on 4 completly different modules for years without problems, I know different ram even makes latency worse, but some people like my dad only seem to care about quantity not speed .

 

[FatRakoon]

I'm not fighting that, I'm saying I think there's a different reason because according to benches Intel has a faster Ram latency than amd's and the L2 cache latancy on an a64 is only 0.1 ms faster ( compared to 2 ms approx difference between netburst cpu's and a64's), unless the Lavalys Everest L1, L2 and RAM: Read, write, copy and latency benchmarks are lying.

I know what you've tested as I renember threads from ages ago about it, but I myself don't have an Amd in my personal computer so I didn't really compare, my dad on the other hand has an AMD x2 4200+ for own use, so might test it myself when I'm bored but tbh I'm not that bothered, I never had a problem with gaming while defragging 4 or 5 hdd's and converting a movie on low priority in the background, even back when I had a pentium D.

Intel are just trying to improve their cpu's at a guess, to be an even tougher compedator.
Just hope the intregrated ram controller doesn't go at cost of compatibility, my dad's amd pc isn't fond of using 2 or more different types & speeds of ram, while on his old intel pc he had it running on 4 completly different modules for years without problems, I know different ram even makes latency worse, but some people like my dad only seem to care about quantity not speed .

Its not only RAM that makes a system run fine as we all know...

Different Motherboards, and yes, as you pointed out, different types of RAM in the same system, all make out the final "REAL" system, there are also cases where a specific HD might run great on one Mobo / HD Controler but run not quite up to par on another, and such things.

If you remember my originsl posts from back then, ( And I made a fair few regardign various aspects of PC speed and tech etc ) you may also remember that I used to thrash the **** out of my systems well before even the A64 came out, so yes, when setup right, the Pentium 4 was more than capable of doing half a dozen things at any one time. One of my big arguements was that all of a sudden, once Dual cores came out, people suddenly seemed to assume that single core CPUs were incapable of doing 2 thigns at once??

Well, in a similar manner, its not impossible for a Socket A system to do a dozen jobs at once, especialyl when you have to face the facts, that in most things, the CPU is actually standing idle for 99% of the time, and its quite often down to the IDE Controler to help a PC run sweet... If you have one HD and oyu are doing lots of tasks, then if they all try to access the HD, then there is only so much you can ask of a system, no matter how good or fact a CPU is, the Ammount of data that can come from or go to a HD is a big limiting factor, however, if you have even just 2 HDs using 2 controlers, then this DATA can be double... Hence even a single core Socket A system can, in some cases out perform a quad core TOTR Conroe / Barcelona even under heavy multitasking.

My own systems have one HD for each thing... One HD for Windows, One HD for Games, oen for Apps, One for Media, One for Junk, ne for ISOs as well as 4 DVDRW Drives, and not only do I use the onboard IDe as well as all 3 onboard Sata Controlers, I also use a PCI IDE card too and this means that I can do most of things I do on my systems, have massive data trasnfers to/from the Drives and the CPU time is hardly touched, thus letting me also play games while Im also converting a couple of AVIs to DVD, as well as defragging and so on... This is something that I have done since my XP2200... The only difference these days is that I do it twice.

 

[snowdog]

hehe yeah I also install all my games on M:\ wich is a Raid 0 and doing this compared to installing into the old fashioned c:\Program files\ is much better, it has boosted my loading speed in games & multitasking ability MUCH more than when I upgraded from a p4 to a pentium D, from PD to C2D, and so on...

I don't have it quite as organized as you with each hdd for it's own as I bought all the hdd's gradually adding them to the same install all the time, but with each extra hdd it's still a better multitasking upgrade than with a new cpu.

I don't think amd's dead for a long time still though, all their cpu's are more than capable of handling the most recent games or apps and as you said most pc's are limited rather by hdd's than by cpu's.

 

[Ragnarok]

AMD arn't dead. the way i see it is that Intel have finaly recovered from the p4 mistakes going for pure clocks rather than making the processor do more with those clock cycles. Unfortuantly for AMD Intel done away with the p4 ideas, have more experience with the 65nm fab plants and are well into the second generation in that respect even with the Core2's and also have flodded the market with cheep cpu's with good performance and overclockability just like AMD used too.

 

[Owenb]

They have a cashcow in memory chips (flash device level).

The outlay for ATI was huge and will hurt for some time, ATI does make them a profit and therefore it's a long term investment which eventually will turn good. Unfortunately in the mid term that is crippling AMD's R&D budget and to certain extent spiralling their borrowing upwards.

Ultimately AMD are still strong where it matters.

I don't think any part of AMD is making money- be it ATI, Spansion, or the CPU department. AMD are weak where it matters and that is in manufacturing. Unless they fix it with 45nm they are cooked, if they success they have a chance.

 

[something_totally_different]

They have a cashcow in memory chips (flash device level).

The outlay for ATI was huge and will hurt for some time, ATI does make them a profit and therefore it's a long term investment which eventually will turn good. Unfortunately in the mid term that is crippling AMD's R&D budget and to certain extent spiralling their borrowing upwards.

Ultimately AMD are still strong where it matters.

AMD`s flash division have consistently posted losses due to the collapse in flash memory pricing.

 

[FatRakoon]

I don't have it quite as organized as you with each hdd for it's own as I bought all the hdd's gradually adding them to the same install all the time

Hey, its taken a while to do it this way.

It started this way on my Atari... I had a partition for each job, and this has gone over to the PC... At first of course due to the HDs being the price they were, I had partitioned the drives at first, but with prices dropping as they have done, I have been able to use more.

All my LAN PCs have 2 Drives. My own have 4 or 6... The only PCs that have just one HD are my kids PCs but like as if 8, 9, a 10 year old kids are going to care? Pathetically, the reason I have 2,4 or 6 Drives, ( and the kids have 1 drive but 2 partitions ) is honestly only down to the fact that O&O Defrag looks good with an even number of boxes to defrag!!! - Hows that for sad?

Its like a while back... I used to use a Maxtor 40GB for my Downloads. Not sure why, but after 3 years of non stop 24/7 Bittorrent up and downlaods from the 40GB Maxtor, I decided to retire it and I replaced it with the same. That says its a great drive ( Shame about the others, but the 40GB is great - Thats now my C: in My No.2 PC and its perfect after about 5 or 6 years still )

Anyway, previous to this, I used my F: for downloads, but adding the extra 40GB made O&O look off, so, I simply added another drive just for my ISOs ( Instead of having them on D: ) and that also made installing quicker too... I now have 200MB Left on my ISO drive so Im upping that drive any day now and putting these 2 80GB Hitachis back into a Raid array.

Listen, Im waffling.

What I am saying is that my systems are in a permanent state of evolution. They has never last for more than a month without major work done. This one Im on now though, did get almost a year without it being touched, but that was only due to the fact that it was Folding and I was too scared to do anythign in case I lost the info???