Intel rubbishes AMD's hybrid plans

Discussion in 'Industry News' started by craig5320, Sep 12, 2002.

  1. craig5320

    craig5320 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2002
    Messages:
    9,682
    Likes Received:
    226
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Intel rubbishes AMD's hybrid plans

    The head of Intel Corp's server chip division rubbished AMD's 32/64-bit hybrid processor proposition yesterday, saying that if it's such a good idea, why hasn't anyone done it before?


    Source: <a target="_blank" href="http://www.theregister.co.uk">theregister.co.uk</a>

    Read the Article <a target="_blank" href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/61/27084.html">here</a>
     
  2. EcPercy

    EcPercy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,534
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    48
    thats typical of intel to do since i know that they must feel threatened, but arent they also making a hybrid 32-64 bit chip?
     
  3. means96

    means96 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    no intel decided to go 32 or 64 only

    Intel layed out there goals and they never included a 32/64 bit chip which will require companies to make vast investments to upgrade from there 32 bit software to 64 bit. AMD will alow a company to invest in the hardware now but still use 32 bit software until you can aford 64 bit software, and as is tipical AMD's chip will likely be more stable and faster clock for clock.
     
  4. nForcer

    nForcer Twice the fun!

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,404
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Processor Wars

    You know...
    Won't it be great when Intel and AMD go thier seperate ways? AMD takes over the cheap-low budget consumers, and Intel takes over the higher end server and top level processing market? Then we can end this silly battle between the two companies who, in my opinion, make great chips, and who could probably care less about what the other company is doing as far as chip advancements.

    I'll give you an example. Lets face it, Intel has and still owns a large percentage of the CPU market, not that AMD isn't making huge strides ahead, but they still have a long way to go to get where Intel is today. Let us not forget that Intel already introduced the 64-bit 'Itanium' processor and saw that the world wasn't ready for it. That was years ago. Meanwhile, AMD was catching up ground in the Mhz/Ghz war and Intel began to take note. Intel recently introduced the Itanium2 which made leaps and bounds for 64-bit technology, but it was still expensive and not many programs were being written for 64-bit instructions, not to mention a 64-bit OS had to be released, and debugged. All this time AMD seemed to surpass Intel in the 32-bit processor field just as Intel was done changing socket designs for their P4.

    Now we are looking at AMD announcing a 64-bit processor for the desktop consumer, and Intel working on an even better 64-bit processor (Itanium3 ? - which could possibly be Intel's answer to AMD's 'Hammer' chip) One thing's for sure - 64-bit technology is coming sooner than we think, but just as Intel found out, the hardware/software support still isn't there just yet, however, Intel does deserve credit for taking the risk of releasing the first *x86* based 64-bit processor and giving the world something new to look forward to.

    What I don't understand is why we waste our time trying to prove who is better? AMD or Intel? The answer is - neither. I shouldn't haveto explain why because any sane minded individual with a non-biased opinion on the matter will agree with me. But for those who want to argue, I'll give you my standpoint. Both are still expensive, both have their problems, (some more than others) and both are making chip advancements too damn fast for any of us to keep up. Sure its nice to say you have a 3.0Ghz CPU, then your buddy comes along with a 3.1, and you feel so insecure that you overclock your 3.0 to a 3.2 and thus the battle begins.

    In my opinion, its pointless, a total waste of time, and its down right stupid.



    Now what the hell was the original post about! :D
     
  5. means96

    means96 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    hybrid

    The original statement by intel was that there is no need for a hybrid chip!

    Yes the battle does seem stupid but I for one thank god there is competition or we would still be down to 100mhz chip's.

    Intel would'nt make the strides they have made if it wasent for AMD and Apple. Though AMD is smaller they have made the strides they are making because they are working smarte, The hybrid will allow a company to have a 64 bit machine but not have to spend as much all at once and this will be atractive to many! AMD will likely have a good shot at the high end market as well as the low end with the upcoming sledge hammer :cool:
     
  6. Yemble

    Yemble New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2002
    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We should all applaud AMD for being the one credible company to take a sizable chunk out of the WinTel monopoly. AMD have made fast processors affordable and forced Intel to follow suit.

    As usual, Intel have missed a trick here by assuming that everyone will (or even wants to) jump en-mass to 64 bit. AMD are pragmatists and are willing to fill the obvious market void that will be created during the gradual transition phase from 32-bit to 64-bit software systems.
     
  7. EcPercy

    EcPercy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,534
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    48
    well there are some good points there , but if there was no AMD just think how high the prices would be......
     
  8. DallasStar

    DallasStar Junior

    Joined:
    May 13, 2002
    Messages:
    2,065
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If intel admits that the move to 64 bit will be slow, then where is the logic in saying that a 32&64 in one processor is rubbish :hmm:? and what's up with saying "why hasn't anyone done this before?"? I mean.... somebody has to start the whole thing, right? who exactly did they mean by "anybody"? I'd say AMD counts as "anybody".
     
  9. vk2amv

    vk2amv New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Messages:
    73
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Translation of Intels words

    I have translated this from intel language to english language for everyone to see. What intel said. "if it's such a good idea, why hasn't anyone done it before?" English Translation. "We dont have anything to come close to compete with the AMD Hammer X86-64 Design so we have got to kill this idea as quick as possible until we can come up with our own chip to do the same thing and then we plan to release that as a brand new technology and charge massive amounts of money for it." Thats what intel REALLY means.
    AREA_51
     
  10. -={420}=-

    -={420}=- New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2002
    Messages:
    1,095
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    -=Off Topic=-

    How do u get a custom title under ur name?
     
  11. nForcer

    nForcer Twice the fun!

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,404
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    vk2amv, you seem to skilled in the ways of 'Intel Language', does this mean you work for Intel?! (wouldn't that be funny!) I'd be willing to bet you haven't even used an Intel processor before, and I know why! Because you are looking for something 'cheap and easy', and each statement you post after this will help prove my cause.
     
  12. Shaith

    Shaith New Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2002
    Messages:
    916
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: -=Off Topic=-

    By posting a sufficient number of messages this option will become available in your profile menu.
     
  13. HardwareHeaven

    HardwareHeaven Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2002
    Messages:
    32,274
    Likes Received:
    163
    Trophy Points:
    88
  14. EcPercy

    EcPercy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,534
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    48
    to nforcer, you seem to have a strong disgust for AMD, but the question is have you really sat down and built a system with one and "hammered" on it? AMD might be a cheaper processor, but clock for clock they rape intel's P4. There is no denying that...

    ahhh so now you want to know if i have ever used intel, well i will tell you YES! my very first pc was a toshiba labtop, it had a 486SX, 10.1" Grayscale monitor, a 800Mb hd, like 8 mb ram, 19k modem, and a 5 1/4 floppy, lets see...that sounds about right....it had windows 3.1 and AOl 2.5, and no internet explorer as there was not enough room for it on the hd. HAHA! i went on from there to the pentium Pro, the pentium 266MMx, the pentium 2...anyways i will still say that the P3 was a nice processor, but my opinion changed alot when i built a system this one time and i had gotten the new P3 coppermine in the socket 370, i was loading up windows 98 and on a reboot the cpu fried.... after that i went AMD... and i have never bought anything else, and trust me i didnt do anything wrong to make my cpu fry... and i have never had a thermal meltdown as shown on THG.... i have yet to see a properly installed heatsink fall off of a cpu!

    that about covers it.... :)
     
  15. vk2amv

    vk2amv New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Messages:
    73
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    To Nforcer

    Well Nforcer. I have read a lot of posts you have made. And to me you seem like an INSECURE intel fan. I dont think you have as much faith in intel/craptel as you make out. You seem to just attack anyone you want without knowing the facts. Did anyone think intel was mad when they upgraded the 286 to the 386 and made the first X86 16/32 bit processor all those years ago? No. (If it wasnt intel that did that I apoligise) People embraced this new technology for what it was. A massive breakthrough in chip technology. Tell me if intel had just made a straight 32bit chip without 16bit support or really crappy 16bit support (like itanium) do you think it would have been so great? No it would have flopped like itanium has. The problem with itanium is they are trying to reinvent the wheel. Or as my dad says they are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Throwing the good out with the bad. AMD has the right idea. They are just upgrading the wheel not reinventing it. That means programs that were invented years and years ago still work. And dont say people dont use them because I know for a fact that some people do. Also it means it is massively easier to program for because you have the option of doing something in 32 bit or performance enhancing 64 bit. Look at it this way. Say adobe wanted to get out a copy of photoshop very quickly with 64 bit support. With craptels itanium that is not possible because they basicaly have to rewrite every last line of code to 100% 64bit. With AMD`s Hammer all they have to rewrite is the parts that need the performance. For example thay could make the filters 64 bit but keep the interface 32 bit. Which means they can have 64bit support where it matters without having to rewrite the WHOLE program. THAT is the massive advantage of X86-64. Also for big companies it is great. Some companies dont want to have to upgrade every last thing at once. That means they can have their 64 bit applications but it also means they dont have to upgrade their 32 bit applications. And as for your questions do I work at intel and have I used intel chips. No I dont work at craptel/intel. And yes I have used many intel chips in the past. I have used a P2 a P3 and many many 486 chips made by intel. Hell I even have an old pentium 133 intel chip in my laptop that I use a lot. I am not saying that intel chips are crap. I have to admit they are good chips in their own right. Intel hasnt gotten much worse except for the P4. That completly sucks. The P3 performs much better than P4 clock for clock. But it is just that AMD chips perform so much better than intel chips now. Go check out toms even. He is very intel biased and even he says AMD is better in a lot of cases. How do you think AMD can do the rating system on the Athlon chips. a 2.13gighz Athlon XP if equal to a 2.6gighz P4. That shows how far ahead AMD is. Oh and by the way just so you dont have to ask no I dont work at AMD. If you want to flame me nforcer go ahead. You will just be proving your ignorance.
    Regards
    AREA_51
     
  16. nForcer

    nForcer Twice the fun!

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,404
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks! You just proved my case.

    I think you're scared because I know what I'm talking about, and you have a confidence problem.
     
  17. vk2amv

    vk2amv New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Messages:
    73
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Back to nforcer

    Well Nforcer. Normaly I would argue for as long as I want with someone, mess up their head and just have fun arguing. But I just dont see the point this time. I dont have the time or the motivation. But I will say is this. If I am supposed to be so scared and dumb why havnt you even tried to shot down any of my arguments. I think it is you running scared. And I think you dont know even half as much as you claim. If you know so much I dare you to try and prove me wrong. Show proof of whatever you say though. Not your own made up proof though I want creditable proof, Toms hardware for an example I would accept as proof. I found even more of your posts after having a bit more of a look and I am shocked by how infantile some of your comments really are. Like this comment of yours out of the delayed hammer thread "AMD will hit a wall if they can't lower the heat their CPU's currently make. If Intel pushed thier chips beyond the stability point, I'm willing to bet you could see 4 and maybe 5Ghz chips that litterally would smoke AMD. But I don't think Intel is going to make that dumb of a decision. Intel thrives on consumers who want stability, not something cheap." Now that just proves just how little you know about AMD and also intel chips. I have been running my Athlon nearly 24hrs a day 7days a week for the last year. I have NEVER, EVER, had a hardware crash. I have had software crashes in win98 and 2k. Even in very rare cases in XP. But what I am trying to say is that AMD chips are just as stable as intel chips if not more so. And dont you talk about the heat AMD chips produce. They may not be the coolest but they are not the hottest. The intel P4 is by far the hottest chip there is on the market. The amount of heat it makes when it is running at full utilization is far more than the Athlon. Plus unlike the Athlon it has a very fatal flaw. It runs in wide temp ranges. The Athlon usualy stays at close to the same temp wether it is running at full utilization or idle. The P4 varies massively between full utilization and idle because intel has designed it to turn parts of itself off when not in use to try and eliminate hot spots. Because of the variation it means there is a lot of expansion and contraction which means shorter life spand because of chip strees. But anyway, I have gone on longer than I planned here. If you want to try and prove me wrong go ahead. Show us ALL how much you really know. I dont really want to be involved in a really long discussion but I will if I have to. I will keep watching this thread as long as I can before I am due to finish moving house but until then I am prepared to put you in your place.
    Regards......again (Enough with the regards man)
    AREA_51
     
  18. R1UK

    R1UK New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Lots of very valid points from everyone, and i could,nt have put most of them any better. However i run 2 pcs at home all the time for various stuff, one sporting an AMD 2gig and 1 a P4 2gig. To me theres no performance difference i can "see" of course someones going to tell me i,m blind maybe. Pricewise of course quite a bit. The old argument of "well your higher priced flaky AMD mobo and deluxe h\sink etc etc negates the difference between getting a Pentium, rather than AMD. Well thats not totally true anymore. So the playing fields evened up a lot, but the AMD remains cheaper and often faster htz for htz. Intel obviously see themselves as superior,in the way its been worded [who am i to argue] but AMD have taken the fight to Intels doorstep, and may even wind up winning. As long as the competition brings cheaper prices for consumers along with technical advancement then we should be the winners. They both make a good product imo, and i would,nt want either of them to vanish, that would do more harm than good.
     

Share This Page

visited