On Wed, 2005-12-14 at 13:42 +0800, Edward Dekkers wrote: > 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. > Thanks Ed. I am going by what I understand of the PR statements and have not done testing myself. I guess I should get the testing tools, but since I usually only build for myself it has not been that important to me so far. Sorry if I have been misled in that area. > Regards, > Ed.
