Chronus, instead of just proclaiming Intel dead, you should try giving some actual arguments to support your claims. AMD's ability to perform more FPUs per second doesn't help the fact that Intel's 64 bit CPU (it is a 64 bit CPU, quad-pumped maybe, but it is still newer, and has a hell of a lot more advanced architecture than Athlon) can push 3.2 GB data per second to northbridge-southbridge and memory (assuming the memory is fast Rambus and not slow DDR). Comparative testing (Barton 3000+ vs. Northwood 3.066) revealed that Intel still outperforms AMD, even when paired with slower DDR 400. If you don't believe me, take a look at
these benchmark results. As you can see, even the fact that AMD now has 512 KB L2 cache doesn't help.
AMD couldn't bury Intel even if Intel gave them a one-year head start in developing new CPUs. AMD's share in the market is rapidly decreasing and now they are holding less than 25%. Fiscal reports are clear: in second quarter of 2003. Intel had 896 million dollars profit, and AMD had -140 million dollars loss. Again if you don't believe me, check out
this URL and scroll all the way down. nForce 2 is a nice chipset, but remember that nVidia is quickly losing profit and market share to ATI, so it seems to me that cooperation between AMD and nVidia is more like a blind man leading a blind man.
Technical specifications, benchmarks and financial reports all show disgraceful defeat of AMD. They will need to come up with something a whole lot better than Barton and Opteron if they want to remain competitive to Intel.
Chronus said:
Ratty you have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what you are talking about
One of us definitely has no idea what he's talking about, and it's pretty obvious that it isn't me.
Oh, yes, AMD
is cheap. But I always like to quote an old Jewish saying: "We are not wealthy enough to buy cheap."
sorry but I just get so pissed when I see ignorant children going on about how superior Intel is..most have no insight whatsoever in the market and know nothing except Intel so they instantly jump to the conclusion that Intel must be best.
So you consider me an ignorant child with no insight in the market. Maybe URLs I posted will help you change your mind. As for my knowledge of computers and new technologies, I am not a freak that will drool over every new CPU that is released, but I still follow the market and thoroughly study specifications of new hardware, and though I may not be an engineer (yet), I still have enough sense and understanding to see that Intel's CPUs are clearly superior to AMD. In addition to my ten years of experience when it comes to PC (and I always used Intel, though I considered switching to AMD), all my friends and colleagues (and they're not ignorant fools either, in fact, most of them are computing students like myself, and many of them already have a degree in engineering and computing and know about computers even more than me) would just crack up laughing if you told them something in favor of AMD.
To sum up, Athlon clearly has its advantages, most important of which are low price and good overclockability, which will guarantee its survival in the market, but technological superiority, decades of experience and, most importantly, financial power will ensure that Intel remains on top of CPU market for many more years.
