Barcelona and Penryn and futre of CPUs ( 3 Views )

no kitty!

Which do you think will be better, Barcelona or Penryn? AMD was always a better CPU maker until C2D came out, ever since Intel has been the better of the two. Who do you think will be the best 1 or 2 years from now?

(seren, Turkmenistan)

I think the new VIA processor will beat them both.

(coþkun, Belgium)

Quote:

Originally Posted by LstOfTheBrunnenG (Post 1031348792)

I think the new VIA processor will beat them both.

:lol:

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpiderWaffle (Post 1031348781)

Which do you think will be better, Barcelona or Penryn? AMD was always a better CPU maker until C2D came out, ever since Intel has been the better of the two. Who do you think will be the best 1 or 2 years from now?

AMD has not always been in the lead. It had such a long run because of the flop known as P4. It'll be alot harder now. But we don't know for sure yet.

(abdullah, Venezuela)

Intel and Amd have traded the performance crown back and forth since the K-6/Pentium2era.. K6 2 was faster than the pentium pro and the first few p2s till Intel got the clocks up, then p2 was faster.. Athlon classics were faster than the P2 and initial slot p3s then p3 was faster when it went to socket and clock speed increased, til the socketed Athlons edged it out, then the p4 came out and it was still slower than both the athlon (and high clocked p3s for that matter) for a while til Intel got the clock speed way up then the p4 was faster than the athlon, then the Athlon64 came out, which was practically uncontested by the various iterations of the p4.. Then Core2 came along taking the crown.. Preceding rant pertains mostly to games..

We will find out when the chips hit the reviewers hands, til then it is all just speculation..
Some of it educated, most of it not so much so, but all of it still just speculation....

Edit: I feel really old, I recently stumbled across my gold fingers oc device for the Athlon Classic, I almost did not recognize what it was... If you know what I'm talking about you are old too.. ;)

(ÖZLEM , Qatar)

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpiderWaffle (Post 1031348781)

If you've only been around since the intro of the Athlon64, then yes, AMD has always been the better CPU until C2D. However, prior to Athlon64, there were numerous other times when Intel had the better product, many times by a wide margin.

(murat, Somalia)

Quote:

Originally Posted by GORANKAR (Post 1031348905)

The K6 came out a month before the Pentium II. AMD's lead, if any, only lasted a month. http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.ph...7&postcount=10 The K6-2 came out later and the only benefit it had was price because it didn't match the P2/P3 chips that were available at the same time in performance (I had both K6 and K6-2 chips when they were out). Things didn't change until the K7 was released, and the K7 didn't really establish a lead until it hit 1GHz.

(mustafa, Antarctica)

I am waiting for 8 core and 8 ghz then I will buy a new one.:rolleyes:

(sezai, United Arab Emirates)

Quote:

Originally Posted by RamonGTP (Post 1031348976)

I think it went:

Games: C2D > Athlon 64 (all iterations) > P4 (Northwood and Prescott) > Athlon XP (all iterations) > Thunderbird >= Coppermine > P4 Willamette > K7 > P3 > P2 > K6-3 > K6-2 ....

It gets a little fuzzy at the end as some games optimized for 3dnow would allow the K6-2 and K6-3 to equal a P2. Games that were FPU dependent and not optimized for 3dnow didn't run well on the K6 series. Otherwise, I think the above hierarchy is roughly accurate with a few exceptions here and there.

(hakan, Ghana)

DP :rolleyes:

(lorin, Cambodia)

Quote:

Originally Posted by GORANKAR (Post 1031348905)

Intel and Amd have traded the performance crown back and forth since the K-6/Pentium2era.. K6 2 was faster than the pentium pro and the first few p2s till Intel got the clocks up, then p2 was faster.. Athlon classics were faster than the P2 and initial slot p3s then p3 was faster when it went to socket and clock speed increased, til the socketed Athlons edged it out, then the p4 came out and it was still slower than both the athlon (and high clocked p3s for that matter) for a while til Intel got the clock speed way up then the p4 was faster than the athlon, then the Athlon64 came out, which was practically uncontested by the various iterations of the p4.. Then Core2 came along taking the crown.. Preceding rant pertains mostly to games..

We will find out when the chips hit the reviewers hands, til then it is all just speculation..
Some of it educated, most of it not so much so, but all of it still just speculation....

Edit: I feel really old, I recently stumbled across my gold fingers oc device for the Athlon Classic, I almost did not recognize what it was... If you know what I'm talking about you are old too.. ;)

all your base belong to us :rolleyes:

(mehmet akif, Singapore)

Quote:

Originally Posted by GORANKAR (Post 1031348905)

Edit: I feel really old, I recently stumbled across my gold fingers oc device for the Athlon Classic, I almost did not recognize what it was... If you know what I'm talking about you are old too.. ;)

(bora, Venezuela)

Well I can't say for sure for anything before 01. Around this time AMD was much cheaper and still faster, if Intel had anything faster it must have only been marginally faster and would have cost much much more.

(hamdi , Iran, Islamic Republic of)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Below Ambient (Post 1031349209)

all your base belong to us :rolleyes:

I think its "All Your Base Are Belong To Us!" ;) :p Too funny!

(derya, Tokelau)

Quote:

Originally Posted by GORANKAR (Post 1031348905)

or too much of a geek, i ahve one of those somewhere in my room.. and im only 18... oh good old cartridge-esk processors were teh shit.

in other news i picked up an old athlon processor today in my garage, and it didnt have an IHS on it.. when did they start putting them on CPUs? have they always been on and my dad just ripped it off?

(hilal, Djibouti)

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpiderWaffle (Post 1031349456)

Well I can't say for sure for anything before 01. Around this time AMD was much cheaper and still faster, if Intel had anything faster it must have only been marginally faster and would have cost much much more.

Even after 01, the P4 Northwoods were a heck of a lot better than the Athlon XP's of the time in every catagory and AMD did not regain the performance crown until the intro of Athlon64, where AMD was up on Intel in everything except for video encoding. Then the X2's came along and AMD was better all around until C2D.

(11 ünlü sanatçý birer ila, Pakistan)

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigDH01 (Post 1031349143)

Sounds about right to me.

(ali ümran, Canada)

Quote:

Originally Posted by RamonGTP (Post 1031349863)

:confused:

http://techreport.com/reviews/2002q1...0/index.x?pg=1

(gülin, United Arab Emirates)

Quote:

Originally Posted by morfinx (Post 1031349874)

:confused:

http://techreport.com/reviews/2002q1...0/index.x?pg=1

Make that "since the 533FSB Northwood Bs.... "

(gizem, United Arab Emirates)

The performance crown has been changing hands a good bit recently. However, there was once a time, when Intel was the unquestioned king of performance.

AMD really didn't become competitive in the CPU market until they started releasing their own 386 DX CPU's, and it wasn't until the release of the 386 DX-40 CPU at a lower price than Intel's 386 DX-33 CPU, that they were suddenly into the picture.

AMD was so far behind Intel when it came to Pentium class CPU's, that they were never really a threat to the upper end. Intel's Pentium had no real competition, and that the closest AMD could come, was by ramping up the clock speeds of their own 486 CPU's (which could come close in most applications) to 120 MHz and 133 MHz.

By the time they actually did have their true Pentium competitor, the K5, it was already years behind Intel, and that they couldn't even get the clock speed of those CPU's past 117.5 MHz on a consistent basis.

AMD's own K6 project was horribly lagging as well, and it wasn't until they snagged NexGen, that they were able to combine their own works with NexGen's 686 CPU to come out with K6, and even then, its poor floating point performance crippled it in many games.

AMD never had a claim to the crown, until the Athlon was released. That's when they suddenly jumped from simply being a bottom feeder, to challenging for the title. Since then, it's changed hands several times, and I anticipate that it will continue to change hands.

(BERTAN, Switzerland)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unabomber (Post 1031350590)

AMD really didn't become competitive in the CPU market until they started releasing their own 386 DX CPU's, and it wasn't until the release of the 386 DX-40 CPU at a lower price than Intel's 386 DX-33 CPU, that they were suddenly into the picture.

AMD was so far behind Intel when it came to Pentium class CPU's, that they were never really a threat to the upper end. Intel's Pentium had no real competition, and that the closest AMD could come, was by ramping up the clock speeds of their own 486 CPU's (which could come close in most applications) to 120 MHz and 133 MHz.

Wow, your memory goes really far back. I didn't have a computer (486) until 1992. I barely remember all the goings on in the industry in those remote days, and I'm 40 years old.

(KemaL, Thailand)

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpiderWaffle (Post 1031348781)

Are you smoking crack? AMD has had a decisive lead ONCE. The Athlon 64 was better than the Pentium 4's 90% of the time and that was it. Go back through the 386, 486, and Pentium days, and even up until the original Athlon came out Intel always had the superior product. AMD always claimed otherwise, but that was never the case. From a quality perspective, I'd bet Intel's DOA rate on processors, is MUCH lower. I don't know what the official DOA rate is for each, but I know that in my experience, 1 in 5 AMD's would be DOA and to this day I've never seen a DOA Intel processor of any kind. (Even having assembled more Intel boxes than AMD boxes over the years.)

The Super-7 platform was pathetic. Not just because of the K6 and it's failure to match AMD's claims, but because the platform was shit. It was filled with horrid compatibility problems and low performance. Even the Athlon boards up to the Socket A days were absolute crap. The processors were great, but they ran too hot and their boards didn't usually last long due to poor voltage regulation or insufficient voltage regulation.

I worked in a service center doing warranty work back in the day and we had stacks of dead Athlon boards and processors. Each one of them had fried voltage regulators on them. So while the Athlon processors were competitive and faster in some benchmarks the overall platform was shit. It wasn't entirely AMD's fault, but that's the way it was. Really AMD processor compatible motherboards didn't get good until NVIDIA stepped in and raised the bar for AMD compatible motherboard chipsets. VIA, SIS, and ALi were all second rate. So even at times were you could buy a faster Athlon that would beat out their Intel counterparts, you still had a reason to go Intel because the whole platform was better overall.

Also...............

AMD has made alot of claims, many of them were bullshit. Claims like:

The AMD K5 was as good as their Pentium counterparts at lower clock speeds. -FALSE
The AMD K6 was faster than the Pentium and more comparable to the Pentium Pro -FALSE
The AMD K6II was a better choice for gaming because of 3D Now support -FALSE

Just to name a few things they've said that were absolute horseshit.

Before anyone calls me a fanboy, I've owned alot of both, so my opinion is based on imperical observation and facts learned having worked in the industry from the 486 days to now. Really until the introduction of the Athlon 64, I felt that even when AMD was comparable or even faster than their Intel counterparts, they weren't worth the BS of their shitty motherboards. Also the early Opterons were clearly better than their Xeon counterparts. The FX series offered superior performance to their Intel counterparts, and Intel's Pentium D was severely lacking. Really the truth is Intel has always had a better quality part or platform and the only exception to this general rule was during the Netburst architecture era.

(denizdilara, United Kingdom)

Intel was first to 65 nm, and will be first to 45 nm, but people should not count out AMD, because they develop their processes jointly with IBM, and IBM traditionally goes for the more elegant process, even if it takes longer.

For example, Intel is not moving to immersion lithography at 45nm, instead delaying that transition til the next node. IBM & AMD however are planning to use immersion for 45 nm - which means they should have better performance than Intel's process (all else being equal), and also they'll be set for the next node, while Intel will have to make that costly and expensive transition.

Should also be interesting to see if TSMC's announcement of 45 nm CPUs is actually from AMD, and if so, what impact that will have on AMD's business.

(veysel, Grenada)

Quote:

Originally Posted by GORANKAR (Post 1031348905)

Edit: I feel really old, I recently stumbled across my gold fingers oc device for the Athlon Classic, I almost did not recognize what it was... If you know what I'm talking about you are old too.. ;)

lol i still have mine too :D

see my sig

(busra, Cayman Islands)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan_D (Post 1031350661)

Since no one else has said that was fanboyish sounding, Im going to.

"The Super-7 platform was pathetic. Not just because of the K6 and it's failure to match AMD's claims, but because the platform was shit. It was filled with horrid compatibility problems and low performance. Even the Athlon boards up to the Socket A days were absolute crap. The processors were great, but they ran too hot and their boards didn't usually last long due to poor voltage regulation or insufficient voltage regulation. "

Exactly how many of these have you had. What constitutes owning alot of these?
I owned several of these, my favorite being a Fic VA-503+ which I owned TWO of along with a k6-2 350 - 450 - 500 -550 and a k6-3 450.

What you said was PURE opinion based.

Arnt you a motherboard editor?
I dont think you should be allowed to write about AMD boards or processors based on your obviously over biased opinions.
If anyone here should keep an open mind, you should.

(Çaðrý, Turkmenistan)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ace123 (Post 1031459210)

Actually it wasn't pure opinion based... He worked in a service center and saw first hand the failure rates of the athlon boards. Where is your evidence to the contrary?

(merve, Niger)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Varmint (Post 1031350789)

For example, Intel is not moving to immersion lithography at 45nm, instead delaying that transition til the next node.

Intel showed a whole wafer of immersion lithography 32nm process test chips using its 2nd process generation high-K (hafnium) dielectric last week at IDF.

My only surprise is that IBM hasn't made a press release yet proclaiming parity with Intel's processes (again). :p And anyways, trying to tie IBM's achievements to AMD is like one kid on the playground saying his dad can beat up the other kid. AMD is getting scaps from IBM, not even at the cutting edge.

edit: i just noticed this thread was bumped from the dead. My response isn't a counter to your statement, it just highlights the deepening division.

(mert, Norway)

Quote:

Originally Posted by RamonGTP (Post 1031459280)

Actually it wasn't pure opinion based... He worked in a service center and saw first hand the failure rates of the athlon boards. Where is your evidence to the contrary?

Wouldn't working for a service center mean that he ONLY seen failure. Otherwise, why would you be servicing it if it was perfectly fine.

I worked for a foreign car repair shop, and I can tell you first hand, all foreign cars are shit. all I ever seen was broken foreign cars. They were everywhere. It was like I was surrounded by broken foreign cars. I never once seen a domestic broken car though. So Ill only drive American cars. Because I never seen broken ones.

Moral of the story is. Why the hell would he be servicing perfectly good computers?

My statement stands.

Wheres my evidence? Wheres his evidence? I don't see a stack of receipts divided up by Intel failed boards and Amd failed boards, only to see the Amd stack clearly was taller. All I have is his opinion. Yes OPINION.

I have my own experience with the boards and processors to call bullshit, and thats what I did. so... Bullshit.

(tuðba, Cook Islands)

Quote:

AMD was always a better CPU maker until C2D came out

thats funny.... joke of the day.

Quote:

Then Core2 came along taking the crown.. Preceding rant pertains mostly to games

Actually i recall intels first Core series to compete and beat AMD64 chips in laptops vs desktops (was big upraor over it), as well as Pentium M chips giving AMD64 chips a run for their money.

(ecem, Guinea)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ace123 (Post 1031459746)

Wouldn't working for a service center mean that he ONLY seen failure. Otherwise, why would you be servicing it if it was perfectly fine.

When I worked for 2 companies fixing computers a long time ago, at least 75%-80% of the hardware I got worked fine.

Your analogy does bring up a good point. Generally, the *software* in a car is very reliable so the problems you see are generally hardware caused. In computers, software is the unreliable component and the problems repair techs generally see are not caused by hardware. Troubleshooting problems down to hardware failures (or completely flaky platforms), especially when you can compare the failure rates to other hardware, can give you a pretty good picture of the reliability of a platform.

Socket A did have some horrible chipset platforms, as did some Intel platforms (esp. VIA). The difference was Intel also had some excellent platforms which were mostly absent from Socket A. IMO, AMD's absence in mainstream chipsets did hurt the platform, and AMD must have realized the mistake enough to get back in the chipset business for K8 server boards.

(zeynep, Argentina)

as far as the athlon chipsets were crap comment.
exactly what was crappy about them other than the low end.
Every nforce 2 - 4 board I ever had worked until I either blew it up on my own accord, or I sold it. I just recently sold two nf7-s boards that I beat the crap out of and they still functioned perfectly. THe epox board I had before that is still running to this day.

The only athlon board I ever had problems with was the ATI chipset boards. And as far as I know, they were crap on the intel platforms as well.

And besides, How is a chipsets problems at all related to the acctual processor product that was sold by an entirely different company. Saying AMD is shit, because of someone elses chipset problems, is totally unfair.
And there was alot of GOOD socket A platforms as well.

(mesut, Thailand)

Quote:

Originally Posted by pxc (Post 1031349106)

So now your agreeing with me? The K7 didnt have the lead on launch? tsk, tsk, tsk.....

(merve, New Caledonia)

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigDH01 (Post 1031349143)

Well, most of your queue is right but I think there should be a place for Tualatin, which finally hit 1.4GHz and went beyond all Thunderbirds and maybe some XPs as well.

(uður, Mauritania)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unabomber (Post 1031350590)

The performance crown has been changing hands a good bit recently. However, there was once a time, when Intel was the unquestioned king of performance.

AMD really didn't become competitive in the CPU market until they started releasing their own 386 DX CPU's, and it wasn't until the release of the 386 DX-40 CPU at a lower price than Intel's 386 DX-33 CPU, that they were suddenly into the picture.

AMD was so far behind Intel when it came to Pentium class CPU's, that they were never really a threat to the upper end. Intel's Pentium had no real competition, and that the closest AMD could come, was by ramping up the clock speeds of their own 486 CPU's (which could come close in most applications) to 120 MHz and 133 MHz.

By the time they actually did have their true Pentium competitor, the K5, it was already years behind Intel, and that they couldn't even get the clock speed of those CPU's past 117.5 MHz on a consistent basis.

AMD's own K6 project was horribly lagging as well, and it wasn't until they snagged NexGen, that they were able to combine their own works with NexGen's 686 CPU to come out with K6, and even then, its poor floating point performance crippled it in many games.

AMD never had a claim to the crown, until the Athlon was released. That's when they suddenly jumped from simply being a bottom feeder, to challenging for the title. Since then, it's changed hands several times, and I anticipate that it will continue to change hands.

As I know, AMD took the first "crown" of its own with its 386DX-40 in the world of 386 because Intel never drove its 386 chips faster than 33MHz. But the problem is at the time it announced 386DX-40, the real world crown had been taken by Intel's 486DX series. The same situation was for AMD's 486 at 120 and 133 MHz and K5 and K6/K6-2/K6-III, which also had a generation lag behind Intel.

(DÝLAY, American Samoa)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ace123 (Post 1031459746)

So your experience is different than his experience, but for some reason his experience is bullshit and yours isn't?

(fetih hüseyin, Guatemala)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ace123 (Post 1031459961)

as far as the athlon chipsets were crap comment.
exactly what was crappy about them other than the low end.
Every nforce 2 - 4 board I ever had worked until I either blew it up on my own accord, or I sold it. I just recently sold two nf7-s boards that I beat the crap out of and they still functioned perfectly. THe epox board I had before that is still running to this day.

The only athlon board I ever had problems with was the ATI chipset boards. And as far as I know, they were crap on the intel platforms as well.

And besides, How is a chipsets problems at all related to the acctual processor product that was sold by an entirely different company. Saying AMD is shit, because of someone elses chipset problems, is totally unfair.
And there was alot of GOOD socket A platforms as well.

I don't think you read Dan_D comment throughly, until Nvidia's Nforce 2 Series, give or take the K7 platform relied on crap chipsets by ex. VIA, SiS, ALI etc.., which hampered it severely. He isn't talking about after Nvidia came into the picture, after that the platform got a lot better, though there were some initial teething problems with the original Nforce for K7 and NForce 3 150 for K8, but the Nforce 2 for K7 was good as was the NForce 3 250, once you get beyond that point, I don't remember any significant problems with either K7 or K8 motherboards.

That is totally fair when your completely reliant on another company to produce your infrastructure for your processor. Your computer is not just a CPU, you need the motherboard to run it as well.

Like he said, due to the platform as a whole, there was still reason to go with Intel, performance is only 1 side of the equation when considering a computer purchase. There is more to it then that.

(ozan, South Africa)

Quote:

Originally Posted by coldpower27 (Post 1031460359)

Hence IMHO the ATI acquisition: to transition to a platform company from a processor company.

(abdurrahman, Cambodia)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ace123 (Post 1031459210)

Agree. I owned the same lol and several boards including the va 503+ (still have one with a k6-3 450 in it) and i had never had any problems. I overclocked all mine also.
had my k6 200 @ 266 with a home made water block that was siliconed directly to the cpu so the water actually ran on the cpu plate lol. Never a problem.6

(UÐURCAN, Indonesia)

before nforce 2 I had an nforce, and I had a kt 266 from via, and that was just fine as well.

and I didn't call his experience bullshit, I called his Amd hating post bullshit. IMHO it simply isnt true.
Ive owned so many old athlon boards ranging from ALI Matx boards with 800 durons
and ECS k7s5as with duron 950s, to the same board with a 1ghz athlon 266, all the way threw my first geforce board to my epox 8rda+ to my 1 of 4 nf7-s boards Ive owned. Not even counting all my families systems with kt 266 and kt400 chipsets of built and upgraded. All of them never failed me until I knowingly screwed them up.

(kewelll, Svalbard and Jan Mayen)

Quote:

Originally Posted by morfinx (Post 1031460402)

Hence IMHO the ATI acquisition: to transition to a platform company from a processor company.

The RD790 boards I saw here are pretty crazy imo :D

(serdar, Cook Islands)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ace123 (Post 1031459746)

I worked for a foreign car repair shop, and I can tell you first hand, all foreign cars are shit. all I ever seen was broken foreign cars. They were everywhere. It was like I was surrounded by broken foreign cars. I never once seen a domestic broken car though. So Ill only drive American cars. Because I never seen broken ones.

Moral of the story is. Why the hell would he be servicing perfectly good computers?

I'm home sick as a dog and that made me LOL so hard I think I ruptured a sinus cavity.

I would've put my buddies xp 2500 barton up against any 3.06 pentium4 based oven of the day.

I've only had two computers ever die on me, and one was a fried mobo and the other a dead cpu - one was a pentium3 and the other was a pentium4. Notice I haven't bought into the core2duo stuff yet.

(abdullah, Uzbekistan)

Barcelona and Penryn and futre of CPUs ( 3 Views )

Related Topics ... (or search in 1.720.883 topics !)