"The worlds best processors"

trojan698 · 21 Oct 2006 at 18:38

Just that I've never ever seen one! Thought it might not have occurred to them to advertise!

GAMEfreak · 21 Oct 2006 at 18:43

ive only seen one, and it was for a lowly sempron 3400+ or sumthin :rolleyes:

monaco87 · 21 Oct 2006 at 19:13

NathanE said:
Yes but that chip is only good for very specific and rare tasks. It also isn't really a chip that's sold to markets where performance matters, but where concurrency does.

It's comparing apples and oranges.

You what..!!!? You are kidding aren't you ! Ask some people who run servers for a living.

Concurrency = performance, why do you think AMD et al are moving from dual to quad core. The x86 boys found out later than most that clock speeds can't keep increasing so the whole multi core thing arose. No here we have a multi core cpu in a general purpose server (£10K) which wipes the floor with x86 in most situations, and guess what it uses 53W.

We run mixed Windows, Linux & Sun and I'll give you an example. We have a Linux box a Dell with 3GHz Xeon, it's an LDAP server. We just switched to the T1 and this is why:

single LDAP upload - 3.0GHz Xeon - 5mins 18 sec
single LDAP upload - 1.0GHz T1 - 1 min 42 sec
5 simultaneous LDAP uploads - 1.0GHz T1 - 2 min 2sec

obviously LDAP is also at the core of ADS, hardly a "rare" task.

For a web server the T1 supported 12 times as many connections as the Xeon, for Oracle the T1 again canes the Xeon. We have found only one application where the Xeon beats the T1 and that was heavy floating point.

I believe the T1 has been so succesful that Ubuntu Linux has been ported to it.

CarlD · 21 Oct 2006 at 19:18

Iv seen an advert for an amd dual core

Reality|Bites · 21 Oct 2006 at 23:07

The other companies don't need to pay for their advertisments, Thay have us to do it for them lol

Kmodo · 21 Oct 2006 at 23:58

Reality|Bites said:
The other companies don't need to pay for their advertisments, Thay have us to do it for them lol

LOL true, during the height of amd64 and gaming I must have covinced about at least 12 friends (and bro's) that AMD was cheaper, faster and runs cooler and to forget all that intel crap on TV. Even though I have now went Intel, if any1 wanted a cheap gaming rig i would still say AMD as core2duo has done jack to my frames.... FACT

Massive Attack · 22 Oct 2006 at 00:16

Gashman said:
i don't, because intel gained control of that years ago, you don't see anything to do with NVIDIA, ATI, VIA, AMD, just intel, that shows how full of **** they really are, they may as well own dell and most other retail PC firms

calm down AMD fanboy

seriously this is just going to go round in circles like it always does, intel will be the best for a set period of time until AMD briings somthing even better and so on and so on so whats the piont in arguing about it

CarlD · 22 Oct 2006 at 01:26

Let intel have there moment!

ramdor · 22 Oct 2006 at 05:38

CarlD said:
Let intel have there moment!

errr year? Did I see somewhere that AMD are waiting until Q3 2007 to bring their quad core out?

Richie.

bikes · 22 Oct 2006 at 09:54

And heres me thinking this thread was about "The worlds best processors" but instead turns into a Amd v Intel war yet again :rolleyes:

233 · 22 Oct 2006 at 10:00

ah but can that sparc T1 do F@H

if anyone can get that to fold and to play Fm2007 i'm away for a bank loan

trojan698 · 22 Oct 2006 at 10:03

deadkomodo said:
core2duo has done jack to my frames.... FACT

What res are you playing at?..

Dolph · 22 Oct 2006 at 10:25

monaco87 said:
You what..!!!? You are kidding aren't you ! Ask some people who run servers for a living.

Concurrency = performance, why do you think AMD et al are moving from dual to quad core. The x86 boys found out later than most that clock speeds can't keep increasing so the whole multi core thing arose. No here we have a multi core cpu in a general purpose server (£10K) which wipes the floor with x86 in most situations, and guess what it uses 53W.

We run mixed Windows, Linux & Sun and I'll give you an example. We have a Linux box a Dell with 3GHz Xeon, it's an LDAP server. We just switched to the T1 and this is why:

single LDAP upload - 3.0GHz Xeon - 5mins 18 sec
single LDAP upload - 1.0GHz T1 - 1 min 42 sec
5 simultaneous LDAP uploads - 1.0GHz T1 - 2 min 2sec

obviously LDAP is also at the core of ADS, hardly a "rare" task.

For a web server the T1 supported 12 times as many connections as the Xeon, for Oracle the T1 again canes the Xeon. We have found only one application where the Xeon beats the T1 and that was heavy floating point.

I believe the T1 has been so succesful that Ubuntu Linux has been ported to it.

But none of that has any relevance to the target market of the Core 2 duo or the advert...

w3bbo · 22 Oct 2006 at 11:11

AMD vs Intel = sigh....not again. :rolleyes:

As for the advertisement, do you really expect Intel to come out and say...'We sometimes have the best processors but AMD are gonna release a new cpu that 'might' stomp all over C2D.' - Hardly good advertising.

Maybe they should have said ' Intel Core 2 duo' - probably the best CPU in the world.

bikes · 22 Oct 2006 at 11:28

w3bbo said:
Maybe they should have said ' Intel Core 2 duo' - probably the best CPU in the world.

Made by Carlsberg

NathanE · 22 Oct 2006 at 11:28

w3bbo said:
Maybe they should have said ' Intel Core 2 duo' - probably the best CPU in the world.

NathanE · 22 Oct 2006 at 11:30

monaco87 said:
You what..!!!? You are kidding aren't you ! Ask some people who run servers for a living.

Concurrency = performance, why do you think AMD et al are moving from dual to quad core. The x86 boys found out later than most that clock speeds can't keep increasing so the whole multi core thing arose. No here we have a multi core cpu in a general purpose server (£10K) which wipes the floor with x86 in most situations, and guess what it uses 53W.

We run mixed Windows, Linux & Sun and I'll give you an example. We have a Linux box a Dell with 3GHz Xeon, it's an LDAP server. We just switched to the T1 and this is why:

single LDAP upload - 3.0GHz Xeon - 5mins 18 sec
single LDAP upload - 1.0GHz T1 - 1 min 42 sec
5 simultaneous LDAP uploads - 1.0GHz T1 - 2 min 2sec

obviously LDAP is also at the core of ADS, hardly a "rare" task.

For a web server the T1 supported 12 times as many connections as the Xeon, for Oracle the T1 again canes the Xeon. We have found only one application where the Xeon beats the T1 and that was heavy floating point.

I believe the T1 has been so succesful that Ubuntu Linux has been ported to it.

So you agree that concurrency is the key selling point for a chip like the T1. Not sure why you're making it seem as though you're in disagreement with me :confused:

Of course I know concurrency == performance. It is just a different "type" of performance, and in particular the type that enterprise looks for. Quite simply the processor with the highest performance and concurrency (X & Y) will win. They don't give a toss about 3dMark scores and all that crap. They care about transactions per minute etc, as you rightly pointed out.

But again as Dolph points out, this is all irrelevant to the thread at hand. The Intel advert is simply getting AMD back for their "We challenge Intel to a dual core duel" advertisements in 2005.

Durzel · 23 Oct 2006 at 00:17

Gashman said:
intel have there head up there own arse, they speak nothing but propaganda about how there products are better than everyone elses, still doesn't stop the fact AMD has been eating away at there server market for some time now and are soon to release there new revision of K8, i mean FFS i remember when they were blabbing that crap about the pentium 4 when the athlon 64 was systematically kicking it all over the place 'buy this dimention desktop with the 'superfast' pentium IV processor supporting HT technology' i smell bull, the whole C2D follows the same propagated load of bull as well, sheesh

Jeez, of all the people on the forum you're by far the worst in terms of being an AMD fanboy.

Even before Conroe was widely available you were banging on about how the benchmarks were meaningless, etc.

What will it take for you to finally wake up and smell the coffee and realise that a) Intel have the fastest consumer chip available right now, and for the forseeable future, b) it doesn't matter which faceless company manufactures it and c) whatever AMD may or may not have "up their sleeve" doesn't mean a damn thing until its benchmarked and released.

Your fanboyism is so transparent it's not even funny.

w3bbo · 23 Oct 2006 at 07:18

Durzel said:
Jeez, of all the people on the forum you're by far the worst in terms of being an AMD fanboy.

Even before Conroe was widely available you were banging on about how the benchmarks were meaningless, etc.

What will it take for you to finally wake up and smell the coffee and realise that a) Intel have the fastest consumer chip available right now, and for the forseeable future, b) it doesn't matter which faceless company manufactures it and c) whatever AMD may or may not have "up their sleeve" doesn't mean a damn thing until its benchmarked and released.

Your fanboyism is so transparent it's not even funny.

Harsh but true