Jeff Vian wrote:
On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 11:04 -0500, Tony Nelson wrote:
At 8:30 AM -0700 12/13/05, Robin Laing wrote:
...
To me the cutting edge is better dual core functioning and better
memory handling. Also lower power consumption is a nice feature. How
about 64 bit processors? How easy is it to get an Intel 64 bit
processor? At what cost/benefit ratio?
Ease up on the advocacy (from another AMD user).
Note that AMD has been able to raise their prices and still keep a useful
cost/benefit ratio over Intel, but at a higher cost.
The cost/benefit is lower, thus better value in spite of the actual $
spent. This is what users see and want.
I like how Intel is now following the AMD line stating that processor
speed isn't as important as processing power. Hasn't AMD been stating
that for years? And hasn't Intel been bashing them over it for years.
...
AMD started that fight in the first place, and had to switch to PR
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Chose to utilize performance as the comparison since theirs was
obviously able to do more at a lower clock speed.
(Performance Rating, Public Relations, you pick) when their next faster
chips got more performance at an initially lower clock rate. Intel hasn't
said a word about AMD PR, because AMD PR compares performance to an
original Athlon, not any Intel chip.
AFAIK it compares to a P4 at the stated speed.
Intel chose the P4 architecture over several alternatives because 1) the
architect thought it had legs and 2) it would always trounce AMD in the
clock speed race. Intel left the P4 (and the architect left Intel) when
the P4 ran out of legs
I don't think that is fair to Intel. The 32bit processor for all makers
has reached near EOL. Intel (and AMD) are focusing on their new 64bit
processors which is a natural replacement for the P4.
Clock speed actually means nothing for performance comparisons. I
believe mips is a much better measure of performance. AMD wins hands
down there because a Sempron 3000+ actually runs at 2ghz and outperforms
a P4 at 3ghz, with similar results for all the Athalon and Sempron +
series chips. AMD also wins on the power/heat area as well.
The facts are that AMD has better performance at lower speed and takes
advantage of that as a marketing tool. It takes PR to let people know
that clock speed is not a valid measurement. You have to compare
athalon to athalon or P4 to P4 for clock speed to be valid. Performance
is the only valid measurement for comparison when comparing different
manufacturers processors.
NOTE: I am an AMD user, but I think arguments should be fair and factual
not biased or based on innuendo.
I (almost) agree fully. We build both AMD and Intel boxes here. There is
just one point I'd like to make.
You mention a Sempron 3000+ outperforming a P4 3GHz. I just want to
mention this is NOT our experience with building these boxes.
For the sake of arguments remaining fair, this would have to be corrected.
No doubt the new AMD (X2 especially) series absolutely spank whatever
Intel has to offer at the moment, but our Winstone/Performance/Burn-In
tests our PCs MUST complete before leaving the office, do not support
your Sempron statement.
All your other arguments get my vote.
Regards,
Ed.
begin:vcard
fn:Edward Dekkers
n:Dekkers;Edward
org:Triple D Computer Services Pty. Ltd.;Management
adr:;;822 Rowley Road;Oakford;WA;6121;Australia
email;internet:edward@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
title:Mr.
tel;work:(08) 9397-1040
tel;fax:(08) 9397-0749
tel;home:(08) 9397-0547
tel;cell:0407083195
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://www.iinet.net.au
version:2.1
end:vcard
