View Full Version : Why we love AMD
I've been wondering after reading a few things on the web.
Why do people buy AMD processors
I've got 2 I mainly bought mine cause it had 3 cores rather than 2 :D and the other one is cheap. I love the 6mb L3 cache too :)
Why have you guys bought AMD over Intel?
All my processors (4) are Intel chips
All my processors (4) are Intel chips
well why have you posted them :lol:
Because price/performance it was better than the Intel, at my resolution of 5760x1080, the CPU is irrelevant.
wonderlust
30-12-09, 15:28
My AMD chips were always bought because the price/performance was about right.
But I can say my Intel purchases have been the same
Too much sitting on the fence here. Go on somebody say something interesting :clap
Well, AMD CPU's in pure performance aren't as good as the i7.
But granted I already had a decent motherboard/ram, it was pointless going i7 when I could get my 940 for 186 quid at the time.
Your just looking to stir thing up Will :spank
I've had AMD for 4 CPU's and intel for the last 2.
Simply based on cost VS performance at the time of purchase.
Your just looking to stir thing up Will :spank
I've had AMD for 4 CPU's and intel for the last 2.
Simply based on cost VS performance at the time of purchase.
You got me :cop::P
We all know how much Will Loves his Amd/Ati stuff...
Will loves his flame wars too! Will = bandwidth/AMD/ATI/NEG REPPING SPREE Fanboi! ;) ;) ;)
PeterStoba
30-12-09, 15:47
The AMD CPUs I own are owned for one reason - benchmarking, they are worth plenty of hwboints, so I bought them.
AMD were great, in my opinion the last great AMD CPU was the Barton core, since then I've not been impressed at all. I've not got anything AM2 or AM3, the core2duo is just simply so much better and cheaper.
I'm always looking for bang for buck and TCO for my machines, I have to as they work hard. That has meant for the last three/four years the CPU choice has been Intel. The fact that I've brought Dell boxes for work has a lot to do with it as well, not much offered from AMD in server market. The opterons really do lag behind the Xeons.
DT.
PeterStoba
30-12-09, 16:21
I've not got anything AM2 or AM3, the core2duo is just simply so much better and cheaper.
DT.
Not any more
Not any more
I keep a look out on stats, power consumption, heat dissipation and the things that really matter for a machine for me like how much it costs to run when working at 100% cpu load. Granted the Phenom four core for price compare very favourably with the Intel, but there's a reason that Intel got hammered in the courts over prices with the big machine manufacturers. When it came down to it a couple of years ago, which was the last hardware refresh that I did at a company level, a home build could just not come anywhere close to the overall cost of ownership from buying ready-made. It made my heart sink at the time :(
I'm glad to say, that when it comes for home use PC's AMD seem to have the market coming back to them, specifically aiming directly at the gaming market. We all know that influence came from ATI, as ATI are such a player in that area. The internal architecture of the wii has been one of ATI's most recent real successes, putting so much so much in one MCM ....
I digress, I could talk geek and opinionise all day, especially over a few beers:beer
At the end of it all, we are, in my opinion starting to see a shift in target. Intel to me are not aiming at the games, they seem to shout multimedia, and tbh for that - buy a iMac with it's Intel heart. PC gaming is a dying market, the consoles are too strong, but that is where ATI/AMD win, they are aiming at the PC gamers and have the pedigree of being embedded one of the best sellers, the wii.
DT.
To answer Will's stirring question, I base my decision purely on what gives the best performance for the money at the time. No brand loyalty.
I also agree with DT that the last great core that AMD made was the Barton and Thoroughbred B - especially the TB-B XP1700+ and the Barton 2500+ which were definitely the sweet spot for overclocking the snot out of :lol: But I'd also argue that AMD also had some good cores with some of the Opteron line and definitely with the Athlon64 at time of launch and for a couple of years after till intel caught up.
My current systems are an Intel desktop and laptop, and an AMD desktop and laptop. All are in daily use :)
AMD were great, in my opinion the last great AMD CPU was the Barton core, since then I've not been impressed at all. I've not got anything AM2 or AM3, the core2duo is just simply so much better and cheaper.
I'm always looking for bang for buck and TCO for my machines, I have to as they work hard. That has meant for the last three/four years the CPU choice has been Intel. The fact that I've brought Dell boxes for work has a lot to do with it as well, not much offered from AMD in server market. The opterons really do lag behind the Xeons.
DT.
What, the barton core SKT A, yeah decent enough at the time? The way i remember it though the 939 opteron dual core chips were great chips too, they left the P4's cowering in their wake. The intel chips needed liquid nitrogen just to keep their temperatures something like under control, ok ok maybe they weren't quite that bad, iirc, and they STILL couldn't keep up with them.
AMD had it too good for too long and they didn't do much with the 939 X2 / Opteron chips and then intel came out with the C2D stuff and have never looked back since.
indeed, the Pres-hot chips were terrible, I found one and had it crunching in the office and it single chip-edly managed to raise the temp of the office. The pull of power required, the shear heat the thing output, and to top it all in most apps tey were quicker with HT turned off!!
Good call with the T-Bird, I had a sweet XP-1700 that was simply awesome for the cost, and was a doddle to cool. My crunching farm that I had in the loft was all barton2500m CPU and I found one thing I've never been able to say about any other chip. I sold them, after owning them for two years for more than I paid for them as they were to fastest core for the socket. I tried the same with the 939's, but was shocked when the dual core 939 was nothing compared to the coreduo.
Why I love AMD? I admire the people who kept the company alive after losing so much after core2duo and xeon hit them so hard. And now the i7 is a stunning chip, simply not comparable to any other 'desktop' offering. Yet AMD have a talent for aiming at a part of the market and nabbing it, they did with the overclockers before, and are now aiming that way again, overclockers/gamers.
I left the overclocking crowd long ago, when cost of running those extra volts was factored in against the next model up of CPU. My Q6600 will do 2.8 and a bit, but it's at stock.
DT.
shock horror, i like amd, they are inovative and have contiually pushed the cpu market forward (much like nvidia do with gpu, bar the fx5 series). they have "blue sky thinkers" working for them and when they have a breakthru intel throw millions at copying it as much as they can without breaching pattents.
now i started with shock horror as i have only had intel cpu in my main box for longer than i have been on these boards but like others have said bang per buck is my biggest loyalty. that is why i went 775 as am2 got/gets thrashed by these intels at everything bar memory latency.
now its over 3 years since i first read about bulldozer and tbh that is the only thing that might take me back to amd in the near future. DT is spot on too, core2 was intels answer to k8 which was an ultra efficient cpu which excelled at gaming, during this time amd made their server cpu more power efficient more scaleable and ultimatey more cost effective for the server owners which made them massive in roads into this golden goose of a market.
this is why i7 only gives tiny gains to a gamer, but massive gains to those in the professional side of computing as its hyper threading multi core bohemoth is great at the things which need that amount of processiong power.
yea now im getting carried away :) so....amd, great company, not so great cpus imo atm :D
spleenharvester
30-12-09, 21:47
'Cause they stay cool and quiet (pun not intended), and the price is perfect.
Shame really though, when I bought this 5000+ (for £35 can I add, bloody good :)) it was top-of-the-range. Now it's classed as mid-low end.
Was gonna buy a Phenom II 550 as they're perfect for the price vs. performance, and have the added possibility of core unlocking (my 5000+ does too actually, but my board doesn't have ACC), but too much too soon imo.
shock horror, i like amd, they are inovative and have contiually pushed the cpu market forward (much like nvidia do with gpu, bar the fx5 series). they have "blue sky thinkers" working for them and when they have a breakthru intel throw millions at copying it as much as they can without breaching pattents.
now i started with shock horror as i have only had intel cpu in my main box for longer than i have been on these boards but like others have said bang per buck is my biggest loyalty. that is why i went 775 as am2 got/gets thrashed by these intels at everything bar memory latency.
now its over 3 years since i first read about bulldozer and tbh that is the only thing that might take me back to amd in the near future. DT is spot on too, core2 was intels answer to k8 which was an ultra efficient cpu which excelled at gaming, during this time amd made their server cpu more power efficient more scaleable and ultimatey more cost effective for the server owners which made them massive in roads into this golden goose of a market.
this is why i7 only gives tiny gains to a gamer, but massive gains to those in the professional side of computing as its hyper threading multi core bohemoth is great at the things which need that amount of processiong power.
yea now im getting carried away :) so....amd, great company, not so great cpus imo atm :D
So Nvidia cutting the DX10 spec was pushing gamers forward?
Nvidia's PhysX pushing games forward?
:rolleyes:
So Nvidia cutting the DX10 spec was pushing gamers forward?
Nvidia's PhysX pushing games forward?
:rolleyes:
lol
thread about amd this one, but yes.
lol
thread about amd this one, but yes.
Nvidia's business practices are rubbish.
PhysX is being replaced by OpenCL.
And DX11 is what DX10 should have been.
Nvidia's business practices are rubbish. *1
PhysX is being replaced by OpenCL. *2
And DX11 is what DX10 should have been. *3
1 please enlighten me on this as my understanding must be flawed.
2 so is cuda but do you think that would be happening if it were not for how well they work and the support and critical acclaime they have recieved
3 and how well would the 2900 done with that? in truth 11 is what 10.1 should of been.
1 please enlighten me on this as my understanding must be flawed.
2 so is cuda but do you think that would be happening if it were not for how well they work and the support and critical acclaime they have recieved
3 and how well would the 2900 done with that? in truth 11 is what 10.1 should of been.
Umm.
1.)Stopping PhysX if an ATI card is used as the rendering card? If I paid for an Nvidia card to use PhysX, what the hell gives Nvidia the right to stop me doing so?.
2.)Cuda has use in photoshop etc. Nvidia's technology will never become a priority as only one vendor can use them, OpenCL will change that for physics.
3.)You realise DX10.1 is what DX10 SHOULD have been right? Nvidia got the spec cut down.. Most of DX10.1 is in DX11.
:clap:clap:clap
Will loves his flame wars too! Will = bandwidth/AMD/ATI/NEG REPPING SPREE Fanboi! ;) ;) ;)
:thumbsup::thumbsup:;)
For gaming I think I have the best CPU for miles around especially for the price :) that's the main reason I bought the Phenom II 720 over any other CPU around :)
I got my i7 for a price i couldnt miss off a mate. Thats why...:D
AMD is just great for the cost and upgrade path especially. Good price to performance ratio with the latest Athlon/Phenom II chips. Some great bang for buck chips too.
Fun to OC with as well ;)
Umm.
1.)Stopping PhysX if an ATI card is used as the rendering card? If I paid for an Nvidia card to use PhysX, what the hell gives Nvidia the right to stop me doing so?.
2.)Cuda has use in photoshop etc. Nvidia's technology will never become a priority as only one vendor can use them, OpenCL will change that for physics.
3.)You realise DX10.1 is what DX10 SHOULD have been right? Nvidia got the spec cut down.. Most of DX10.1 is in DX11.
1
i dont see how thats rubiish buisness practice?
2
as many vendors as are willing to use them can? nv dont care as it means the end user needs theirr card to get the bennefit of it. yet your point seems to agree with mine that the whole gp gpu movment has taken its momntum from nv pushing physx and cuda as a big plus point.
3
you say that like it cost ati anythig, if the 2 series was ready for those features in 10.1 why dont they support it too?
1
i dont see how thats rubiish buisness practice?
2
as many vendors as are willing to use them can? nv dont care as it means the end user needs theirr card to get the bennefit of it. yet your point seems to agree with mine that the whole gp gpu movment has taken its momntum from nv pushing physx and cuda as a big plus point.
3
you say that like it cost ati anythig, if the 2 series was ready for those features in 10.1 why dont they support it too?
This is going no where :rolleyes:
ATi have got their own forms on 'special' technology.
Eyefinity and ATi Stream we're forgetting here
ATi have got their own forms on 'special' technology.
Eyefinity and ATi Stream we're forgetting here
Eyefinity's immense.
But eyefinity doesn't exclude Nvidia people, as they can use TH2G, and eyefinity isn't geared towards advancing the games feel, as advanced physics would, PhysX was and is a flop, as much as there is a need for hardware accelerated physics, a one company sided technology isn't the way for it, I'm looking forward to OpenCL quite alot.
eyefinity is very nice with projectors but with screens the case can get in the way of effect tho.
stream is geared more for the professinal sector being based on simd, i cant see getting taken up for more mainstream use.
who is it helping microsoft out so that all the gpgpu software works?
So, you're talking about eyefinity and the experience without having it ;)?
On a two screen eyefinity set up, it's horrendous.
On three screens the bezel's don't get in the way at all tbh.
so i need to have it in my box to have experienced it? in that case how do you know that physx isnt the best thing to ever happen to pc gaming?
not that i can go and play with bits in my local pc shop no....
so i need to have it in my box to have experienced it? in that case how do you know that physx isnt the best thing to ever happen to pc gaming?
not that i can go and play with bits in my local pc shop no....
I've experienced PhysX, you haven't experienced eyefinity, therefore you can't really make judgement on the experience can you?
its not in your box so i dont believe you lol
its not in your box so i dont believe you lol
Well, besides the fact PhysX works on CPU's initially....:rolleyes:
And lets move subject now, it's degraded severally.
And lets move subject now, it's degraded severally.
Its page 2 - anything goes from there on!
yea, n it ait a thread started by a jp so....
yep, so if your basing your opinion of physx on what it can do on your cpu then im not in the slightest bit surprised your not blown away by it martin.
yea, n it ait a thread started by a jp so....
yep, so if your basing your opinion of physx on what it can do on your cpu then im not in the slightest bit surprised your not blown away by it martin.
Oh man..
I was merely pointing out a flaw in your logic, as PhysX is indeed in my system, I have experienced the hardware Phsyics acceleration with an Nvidia GPU.
Point being, PhysX is dead in the water (The advanced stuff) since it's an Nvidia only tech and it can only be used (officialy) with an Nvidia card, hence why OpenCL is going to be better and become standard (Futuremark said if OpenCL had existed during shattered horizion development they'd have used it as opposed PhysX, that's one company, many more have the same attitude).
Advanced physics is needed, but we need an open standard, PhysX could have been great, but it wasn't because of Nvidia's dictorial attitude regarding it.
:)
i know, but your blinkered eyes are just skiming over the fact that its a technology that nvidia saw as a winner and because they bought it, and then pushed it bigtime, thats its getting encompassed into an open standard.
ok lets look at it from another way, ati were the first to bring out a f@h client for thier gpu making it a gp gpu but they never pursued it further for what ever reason. nv saw this was a way of more sales down the road and ran with it, making everybody and anybody aware of what could be done with a powerful gpu. beit thru cuda or physx, now if thats not pushing the tech forward and ultimatly good for all of us i dont know what is.
seems your rose tinted glasses cant see that eh?
PhsyX flopped because it's not an open standard...
Hence bad business practices, it didn't move PC gaming forward at all, whereas OpenCL wil because it's allowed to be used by both vendors, why can't you grasp that fact :s?
guys, not wishing to get more involved, but frankly this is getting boring.
Respect each others opinions and move on :)
DT.
We don't want opinions WE CAN FACTS...Phyx sucks :D unless your running 3DMark ;)
We don't want opinions WE CAN FACTS...Phyx sucks :D unless your running 3DMark ;)
PhysX doesn't suck, the implementation does.
guys, not wishing to get more involved, but frankly this is getting boring.
Respect each others opinions and move on :)
DT.
not much fun that tho is it? Snigger
martin, let me get this right so i can understand. you like physx and think opencl will be great but you dont like the fact that the company that bought the ip from ageia and wanted to protect its intrests is nvidia?
nvidia who are the same people who are supporting the opencl project and microsofts gpgpu work buy paying their own people to work on the respective projects to ensure their hardware works fine with them?
yet at the same time you just ignore the fact that it was ati who started the whole gpgpu fad with f@h for the 1900 and then failed to do anything of interest or worthwhile with it. personally this is why i think your sore about it and your using other nonsical reasons to try and put it down and belittle its importance.
will nice 1 m8 :D i lol'd wether you ment it that way or not :D
This is becoming pointless.
Hardware accelerated physics are needed, but we need an open standard, if PhysX was an open standard, it'd be more favoured, but because Nvidia dictate its use, it's not really very well implemented.
I don't care who did what first, or what company does it, as OpenCL's not owned by ATI, therefore I'm not really ATI fanboy based am I? I just want an open hardware accelerated physics standard.
I think you're both saying something quite similar but in different ways....
Physics will not take off until there is a universal format that every computer can use, no company will limit a game so that only people with nvidia or ati cards, or only new cards can play it, they want sales. Games that physics makes a real difference, eg destructable environment cant be played in multiplayer if some can destroy, and some cant destroy it.
PhysX is only good for 3Dmark :P
PhysX is only good for 3Dmark :P
Blatant fanboyism.
PhysX as a feature is good.
It's implementation however isn't.
Ignore will's comments.. He just says most of these things to wind people up and cause problems.
I've got 2 I mainly bought mine cause it had 3 cores rather than 2
So you bought a dud quadcore instead of a decent (intel) quadcore :P
flibblesan
18-01-10, 22:52
I didn't buy the AMD.. the AMD chose me.
Well, actually, I won it along with the motherboard. And it's miles better than the Pentium Dual Core E2160 I used to have!
Andrew Moore
18-01-10, 22:59
Glad to see your still getting on with it. I take it they shipped the cpu to you as there wernt any there other than the i5s...
Andy
busman3000
19-01-10, 17:48
AMD tend to have good bang for buck, which is why I love them.
I tend to think of Intel as still having a snob factor, like you're paying for the name. Of course to an extent you are, along with better build quality and all that.
But yeah, AMD are the plucky underdogs in my mind, battling against the tyrannical intel corporation!
...that, and I get more for my money :P
busman3000
19-01-10, 18:13
I tend to think of Intel as still having a snob factor, like you're paying for the name. Of course to an extent you are, along with better build quality and all that.
But yeah, AMD are the plucky underdogs in my mind, battling against the tyrannical intel corporation!
...that, and I get more for my money :P
I agree so much about the underdog thing, maybe thats why I went for them too :)
All my processors (4) are Intel chips
well why have you posted them :lol:
cos i'm bored :P
lol you don't post cuz you'r bored normally ??
or do you??
I've been using AMD CPU's... well since my Intel PII.. yes it was that long ago.
Upgraded to a T-Bird 1.2ghz and overclocked that to around 1.7ghz for a couple of years, before the capacitors on the Abit board gave out and blew the CPU with it.
Then there was a 2800 (barton core) running my home server/email machine and my 2500 Barton (unlocked) which ran at 3200 speeds (would go higher too) for almost 5 years. The motherboard finally gave out just over 12 months ago, and I sold the CPU for £40 as it was still running perfectly. I did have one of those monster coolermaster jet 7 heatsink/fans on it though and even overclocked and in a decent case... never got above 46º idle even in the middle of summer (with no aircon). In winter, with fresh thermal paste and a dust free interior... 38º was normal.
There have been other AMD CPU's and aside from a couple of nVidia vid cards, ATI has been my preference.
Now running a Phenom Quad 9550, at stock speeds, although it does overclock nicely.. just that my current board isn't really upto the job... not great for tweaking like my old Abits were.
For it always about the best I can afford, which also gives the best performance... and that's always been AMD's strong point. I no longer try to keep up with the newest components... spending most of my spare cash on the house I just bought, and my sports cars (track prepared). I guess I keep 12 months behind on the newest stuff... by which time the prices have dropped and it's even more bang for my buck.
I do find that I buy hard drives a lot more often though... my digital needs have grown and My current PC can no longer cope with running as my main and my media centre. 4 hard drives inside and 2 external USB, giving me about 5TB are all nearly full... I only have about 600gb of space left... and at the rate I'm adding HD content, that'll be gone in a few months.
So now it's time to build a dedicated media centre... and that will be AMD again... only this time I don't need high end, so I'm actually going to 'underclock' the CPU to reduce heat further and avoid the need for case fans (other than PSU). matx board with onboard vid will do fine, 4gb ram and a couple of 2TB drives, plus at least one of the 1TB drives from this rig... should keep me going for a long time.
Probably go with the Phenom 2 Quad or Athlon 2 X2 (3ghz) and win 7... won't break the bank... because i's AMD. :)
I3R0K3N7FEET
01-02-10, 14:46
in my experience i have always found that an AMD platform isnt as clunky as intel and i use intel regularly too
i mean.. i can go all day multi tasking on my own rig but on an intel rig its like that it needs a breather and when you change to something else and open a new app the cpu brain farts for a few seconds...
so overall the AMD platform imo is a lot more stable than intel along with the price to performance.. just my view :P
I've used AMD chips rather than Intel for at least 8 years, I love them, and they are always great value for money. Don't like the Intel Socket 775, it's a ***** to fit the cooler and so easy to damage the pins on the socket :-(
Never had a problem with either Intel or AMD CPU's, except Intel's seem alot better today than they used to be.
My first PC was on a tight budget and the T-bird AMD allowed me to do the 'graphite pencil' overclock. Since then I've stuck with AMD for its performance & value. I'm not a gamer so I don't need the latest hardware. My next upgrade is the SSD
PhoenixRising
03-02-10, 14:22
I loved my Athlon 64 3200 Winchester Core. Had it up to 2.7GHz from 2GHz which was pretty damn good in those days.
I've used AMD since the K6 3D now ! gotta be at least 10 years. I moved across then because they were cheaper basically and have been lazy since not really paying too much attention to Intel. I've had Intel in my Laptops though. As I really only use a computer for work I just look at what AMD are doing each time I want to upgrade.
I had an intel P4 2.8ghz HT in my laptop and it sucked the power out of the battery like you wouldn't believe. If I could get 120 mins out of the battery I was having a good day... try playing a DVD or a video from the HD and you'd be lucky to get 90m and 70m respectively.
And don't even think about playing a simple game... browse the web, write some emails and you might get 2hrs if lucky... even with all the wireless and other crap turned off, low power on the screen which made it hard to read... still crap performance.
It wasn't a crappy laptop either, was one of the Acer travelmate series... I was using in on holiday in Canada and nearly bought one of the electrovaya power pads... but they didn't support my laptop with it's 20v PSU, only smaller ones that normal laptops used.
Unless I have more money than sense and want to build a monster system... Intel isn't even a consideration.
wonderlust
03-02-10, 22:07
The P4 were power hogs, but since the core2 series of processor intel have been very god on power useage, and the atom's even more so, but only when used with the Nvidia chipset the old 945 chipset that Intel were using is very power hungry.
I believe that the atoms now have a new more power effiecent chipset now though.
Will i keep meaning to ask this. But is 'we' the voices in your head? :P
My first PC was on a tight budget and the T-bird AMD allowed me to do the 'graphite pencil' overclock. Since then I've stuck with AMD for its performance & value. I'm not a gamer so I don't need the latest hardware. My next upgrade is the SSD
Lord, I remember that! overclocked my 600 t-bird up to 900 with just a stroke of the pencil! Those were the days! Now running my 2600 QuadCore at 3380 at the moment without any problems and done by a tweak in the CMOS!
I used to be a AMD only builder with Socket A, 939 etc but recently I moved to Intel on the i7 platform and am very happy.
I honestly like both companies and I would rather they both stayed in the market than losing one.
Maybe my next build will be a AMD, who knows.
Will i keep meaning to ask this. But is 'we' the voices in your head? :P
There is only 1 voice in my head ;)
Is that voice a bit mental? Mine is :D
theelusiveyoda
04-02-10, 22:55
pentium 4's were extremely hot running and power hungry cpu's i know my pentium 4 3.4ghz socket 478 draws as much power as my quad core q9450 at 4.5ghz
michaelkenward
06-02-10, 18:21
Too much sitting on the fence here. Go on somebody say something interesting :clap
Because Intel is a dangerously close to being a monopoly. Even if they offer the same price/performance as AMD, it is not a good idea go give Intel the whole market.
Then again, that might encourage ARM to buck up its ideas and get into that market. Then we could support a local company.
Tinkernology
06-02-10, 23:27
Intel has always been expensive for processors and since AMD is their only real competitor right now they are number one to get my support maybe in the near future we will get more choice too. Sadly AMD have slipped lately in the performance stakes that is down to the big setback they had with the original phenoms and the integration of ATI was not the pick up they needed in the short term. Hopefully they will recover the ground they lost we don't want the big cat getting all the fish from the bowl.
theelusiveyoda
08-02-10, 15:25
what a lot of people dont realise is that amd got its foot in the door because of intel because they signed a contract to produce intel 8086 and 8088 cpu's afterwards amd cloned intel's i386.
what a lot of people dont realise is that amd got its foot in the door because of intel because they signed a contract to produce intel 8086 and 8088 cpu's afterwards amd cloned intel's i386.
AMD have all the good ideas and Intel just steal and perfect :)
your reading that wrong will, amd used to make intel designed chips and then went on to deign and make their own.
So yeah. Amd make ****ups all the time and Intel cpu's just work.... Sounds familiar...
theelusiveyoda
08-02-10, 21:54
no im just trying to say that amd started by copying intel. Also intel owns the x86 architecture and Amd owns the rights to x64 if i remember correctly.
Yeah, thats right.. its a funny situation really, when you look at who licences what..
theelusiveyoda
08-02-10, 22:01
i believe intel lets amd produce x86 cpus as long as amd lets intel produce x64 cpus so basically they let each other use their architecture as both would loose out if they didnt let the other use theirs.
im sure amd pay but intel found some loophole saying 64bit was based on their 32 bit licence but instead of suing amd they would use it to save dev time.
might be wrong tho as i used to smoke alot at that time.
your reading that wrong will, amd used to make intel designed chips and then went on to deign and make their own.
I wasn't going off that...more kinda adding to it :p
I just mean like with the integrated memory controller and multi-core chips :) (bar IBM who did it 4 years previous to AMD/Intel :p)
im sure amd pay but intel found some loophole saying 64bit was based on their 32 bit licence but instead of suing amd they would use it to save dev time.
might be wrong tho as i used to smoke alot at that time.
I think thats pretty much exactly what happened.. As far as I understand it (and I could well be wrong :lol:):
Intel owns x86, but has to license it out to other companies for monopolies etc.. AMD developed the x64 stuff, but that is effectively a superset of the x86 instruction set. They license x64 to Intel, but x64 wouldnt exist without x86, which is intel's..
As I said, thats how I understand it, and I could well be wrong, but its something like that anyway! :lol:
wonderlust
09-02-10, 10:41
ripped from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64
AMD licensed (http://forums.aria.co.uk/wiki/License) its x86-64 design to Intel, where it is marketed under the name Intel 64 (formerly EM64T). AMD's design replaced earlier attempts by Intel to design its own x86-64 extensions which had been referred to as IA-32e. As Intel licenses AMD the right to use the original x86 architecture (upon which AMD's x86-64 is based), these rival companies now rely on each other for 64-bit processor development. This has led to a case of mutually assured destruction (http://forums.aria.co.uk/wiki/Mutually_assured_destruction) should either company refuse to renew the license.[27] (http://forums.aria.co.uk/#cite_note-26)[not in citation given (http://forums.aria.co.uk/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability)] Should such a scenario take place, AMD would no longer be authorized to produce any x86 processors, and Intel would no longer be authorized to produce x86-64 processors, forcing it back to 32-bit x86 architecture. However, the agreement[28] (http://forums.aria.co.uk/#cite_note-27)[original research? (http://forums.aria.co.uk/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research)] provides that if one party breaches the agreement it loses all rights to the other party's technology while the other party receives perpetual rights to all licensed technology. The only current 32-bit x86 Intel processors are versions of the low-power Intel Atom (http://forums.aria.co.uk/wiki/Intel_Atom) processor.
I love AMD as its fun to try unlock chips for added performance. Just picked up an X2 555 C3 and unlocked to X4 B55 stable ;) Not OC'd yet.
Ive just switched back, from an e2140 @ 2.8 to a p2 955 x4 @3.8, I just buy whatever gives a decent performance upgrade at the time for a decent cost.
I love AMD as its fun to try unlock chips for added performance. Just picked up an X2 555 C3 and unlocked to X4 B55 stable ;) Not OC'd yet.
I swear you've had like a 80+% success rate on unlocking I've had 0% success rate :lol:
Haha sorry mate. I was in the same boat as you. I had chips that unlocked but never booted into Windows, or just didn't unlock. Having a right stroke of luck with the last 4 chips lol.
I love AMD/ATI
XD
Just because I'm a die hard fanboy.
I love AMD/ATI
XD
Just because I'm a die hard fanboy.
at last someone whos honest :thumb:
Nothing bad about being a hardcore fanboy.
it defies all logic but im cool with that, tbh i just find it funny its taken nearly a 100 posts before anybody owns up when i know theres more than just you that fall into the same bracket.
I love AMD because I'm tight and want the fastest I can afford. :)
I used to have an AMD processor, around 2-3 years ago :P Since then I've always gone with Intel.
I go where the best bang per buck is for the system i want / needs are.
Ive always had AMD processors up until the i5 750
I will always have a soft spot for AMD but i must admit , the i5 is far faster than my previous Phenom II 955
It just feels faster. I think it may be that the new intels have the memory controller built in now so the AMD has no advantage.
Matt
deepblue69uk
19-03-10, 14:18
When I came to building a budget gaming system there was no contest. I saved alot of money so that eventually I can spend money elsewhere. I would rather have a balanced system over all rather than the out and out fastest processor. Currently, my system has an AMD Athlon II X4 620. That is more than enough for my needs at the moment. I have played with Core i3 and Core i5 but I can't say that I sense any difference in generaly usage. Where it counts are things such as video or audio encoding but also in games that are very cpu dependent.
I have used both AMD and Intel over the years. Before that it was either Intel or Cyrix CPUs. I tend to base my purchasing decisions mostly on 'bang for buck'. Traditionally there has always been a company that has beaten Intel in that stake. Intel, often but not always, have the best technology but other companies can offer similar products for much less money. So far I am happy with AMD.
99% of the systems I build are AMD systems, simply because customers want cheap quick and reliable. The majority of the machines they replace are Intel based machines which die for some quirky reason no-one can explain. I have AMD machines out there in businesses that have been running 7 years all day everyday without a problem.
My own machines are also AMD based, including my laptop. I notice the AMD based laptops run cooler on the base so much better for those who use them on their knee.
I also work in 3D Modelling and CAD, and always found the AMD machines to be much more efficient when handling realtime 3D rendered models, even with just standard on-board graphics.
In my old job we worked with a company that produces maths software, similiar to MathCAD but they were using it for things far more complicated. They were approached by Intel for a new multi-cpu system for working out something for NASA, and even though Intel offered to provide the system free of charge, they still went AMD. Why? Because they would have needed 50 Intel CPU's to do the job of 30 AMD CPU's at the time.
CPU's work on doing the same equation over and over until it gets similar answers, similar to how someone counting lots of small change would work, you keep counting it til you get the same answer. The AMD CPU's always managed the real maths side of processing more efficiently in that it did not have to rework the same equation as much as the Intel chips did. This is why x64 chips are so much quicker too, higher accuracy.
For those who know about the early CPU wars, Intel chips regularly failed back in the 386/486 days when they released them with and without co-processors. They were named sx and dx. It transpired all sx chips were failed dx chips, in that when tested the co-processors failed. This is still true today as the cost of manufacturing all the different combinations would be astronomical.
My sources are all from the trades, I used to work for them and have no reason not to believe them.
At the end of the day for most of us, its down to cost. If you want to overclock your machine to death for gaming, then perhaps Intel is the preferred way to go. But I know I can get excellent performance out of an AMD setup for half the cost, and that goes a long way to my customers too.
Interesting point on the who owns what rights by the way. The way I read that is if AMD say to Intel they cant make x64 based processors anymore, Intel would have nothing left. It doesnt matter the other way because AMD would survive with no x86 based processors as they hardly have any anyway. Now wouldnt that be an interesting battle.
i like how cheap the components are, really good bang for buck, specially for quads.
Like Cotesy, I have 100+ workstations/servers out there in the field with small businesses. 95% of them are AMD, I only go Intel if the customer demands it. AMD provide far more bang for the buck, run cool and are stable - even when overclocked. And the AM2+/AM3 socket is so much easier to use than that awful pins-on-motherboard Intel contraption, and the equally awful plug-in coolers you have to use.
My oldest AMD is still running software in a chemical processing lab, it's at least 7 years old and has never had a single problem in all that time.
I've owned IBM, Cyrix, AMD and Intel CPU's.
My favourite was the Cyrix and IBM brand in the mid 90's. Great price/performance there with their 686 series. We sold tonnes of them as our gaming systems and had 15 networked systems in our store, 13 Cyrix 686's, 1 AMD and 1 Intel Pentium. ah, memories.
Other than that, I've owned more AMD's than Intels and more Cyrix than both. The last Intel I bought was the Celeron 366. (missed out on the 300A). But the Celeron 366 was ok. The AMD 64 3000+ and AMD 64 4000+ that replaced the Intel was much better.
Now I just bought an Intel i7 960. I would have purchased the AMD 6 core but it wasn't out yet and the AMD 965 just wasn't in the same ball park. :(
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a9/KL_Cyrix_6x86MX.jpg/574px-KL_Cyrix_6x86MX.jpg
I'd like to go AMD in the future again once the i7 960 is slow.
Now my Favorite CPU has to be the Motorola 68000 which found its way into heralded computers such as the Amiga, Atari ST, Apple Lisa and Macintosh. :D
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2e/KL_Motorola_MC68000_CLCC.jpg/602px-KL_Motorola_MC68000_CLCC.jpg
wonderlust
25-03-10, 09:40
Lol my ST had an oblonge 68000 :D
Think we have another old wrinkly on here WL, wonder if he is as old as you ;)
wonderlust
25-03-10, 10:08
I have a feeling he may have 10 years on me ;)
Haha we may never know :chuckle:
Unless you know something i don't??
wonderlust
25-03-10, 10:12
no just a feeling from the information supplied
I have a feeling he may have 10 years on me ;)
Blimey... that makes him, what - 96?! ;)
Okay so I am a lazy old man.
Started readin gthis thread and my eyes sarted glazing over.
Has anyone brought up the subject of the "new" 6 core Athlons shortly to be released at very keen prices but with fairly impressive performance to if the blurb is to be believed?
and $199 for the middle of the range is going to tear even the i3s a new one.
Plus they evidently work on the existing AM3 mobos??
wonderlust
25-03-10, 12:40
Blimey... that makes him, what - 96?! ;)
Hmmm where is the minus Thanks button.... ;)
I was not born when England won the Football (soccer) world cup!
I believe they will work on AM2+ boards too.
Think we have another old wrinkly on here WL, wonder if he is as old as you ;)
38. :thumb:
"Building PC's since a few on here were still in diapers"
40 and feeling it recently... I may have a few grey hairs... but at least it's a full head of hair still. :)
and there's always some just for me. :lol:
40 and feeling it recently... I may have a few grey hairs... but at least it's a full head of hair still. :)
and there's always some just for me. :lol:
Age = Experience, wisdom and knowledge... or at least that's what I've been told. :D
Might you recall working on any 286's? Remember I/O cards?
wonderlust
29-03-10, 18:46
well i got a few years on you both....
I/O cards and baby AT motherboards ;)
Most people should be thankfull that plug and play evolved, no more configuring IRQs and I/O addresses ;)
gargh... I remember the first PC I ever tinkered with. Was an Amstrad 286... but had no sound or anything.
Then we purchased an Olivetti 386 with 1mb ram and added a soundcard... and the hassles that used to give us. I had to have about 10 different boot disks for various games... The X-Wing and Tie fighter ones, and perhaps some of the Monkey Island ones, and some shareware stuff like the original Wolfenstein and Duke Nukem.
IRQ settings used to get my back up no end...
well i got a few years on you both....
I/O cards and baby AT motherboards ;)
Most people should be thankfull that plug and play evolved, no more configuring IRQs and I/O addresses ;)
PnP revolutionized the industry and windows vs DOS. You REALLY had to know what you were doing back then before Microsoft Windows 3.0
Anyone remember loading drivers into HIMEM to use that 4KB of ram to get those "ram intensive" games to load up in DOS?
As Bill Gates said back then... "I don't see a need for a computer to use more than 256k of ram!"
gargh... I remember the first PC I ever tinkered with. Was an Amstrad 286... but had no sound or anything.
Then we purchased an Olivetti 386 with 1mb ram and added a soundcard... and the hassles that used to give us. I had to have about 10 different boot disks for various games... The X-Wing and Tie fighter ones, and perhaps some of the Monkey Island ones, and some shareware stuff like the original Wolfenstein and Duke Nukem.
IRQ settings used to get my back up no end...
Ah yes, X-Wing vs Tie Fighter! Awesome game.
Did you play Wing Commander back then? Now you needed a good 486 for that one!
Doom I, original Wolfenstein and Duke Nukem... classics.
I had a "website" in the early 80's (BBS) running on my Commodore 64 and 300 baud modem off a 5 1/4" floppy (single sided) and 1 phone line with 1000 users! lol.
"300 baud pocket modem"
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3584/3650820635_074d19a8be.jpg
Ah, here we go! My first modem. 300 baud for $150. You had to use the toggel switches to "reset" the connection and for power.
Now, that was pretty cutting edge calling another computer in the early 80's...
PnP revolutionized the industry and windows vs DOS. You REALLY had to know what you were doing back then before Microsoft Windows 3.0
Anyone remember loading drivers into HIMEM to use that 4KB of ram to get those "ram intensive" games to load up in DOS?
As Bill Gates said back then... "I don't see a need for a computer to use more than 256k of ram!"
I used to use a program called Memmaker to do that.. I remember buying a game, and it just wouldnt run due to not having enough memory.. I remember being SO happy when I found out about memmaker! :lol: :lol:
This isn't the actual one, but this is the first type of modem I ever used. Not at my house though! :lol:
http://www.consortiumofgenius.com/livejournal/acoustic_modem.jpg
I never got online myself until around 97, but I had the C64 when they came out... I sold my Atari 2600 and all of the games to help pay for it as my xmas pressie... Plugged it in, loaded Hover Bover (Jeff Minter was a gaming GOD) and found the joystick was faulty... thus continuing the tradition in our house (that exists to this very day) that something electrical will not work properly when opened on xmas day.
So instead I loaded up the Hobbit adventure game, as I loved the book and we spent weeks playing that and arguing over what to do next. :)
Every month my friends and I would each buy one game and share them round... found a use for twin tape decks with level controls. :)
Those were the days... going to a computer club every Monday night to play games and talk about the latest and greatest in home computing... and sitting around the TV at 9pm to watch the Young Ones... yes it was that long ago, and no.. they weren't repeats. :)
Tolmandary
20-04-10, 10:08
Total cost of ownership is cheaper for the performance you get. It's not just the equivalent CPU's for the same performance that are cheaper, but also the MoBo's with similar features are less than Intel versions. Plus I really like the full integration between AMD (CPU and Chipset) and ATI as a single source for my computing needs.
So instead I loaded up the Hobbit adventure game, as I loved the book and we spent weeks playing that and arguing over what to do next. :)
Every month my friends and I would each buy one game and share them round... found a use for twin tape decks with level controls. :)
Those were the days... going to a computer club every Monday night to play games and talk about the latest and greatest in home computing... and sitting around the TV at 9pm to watch the Young Ones... yes it was that long ago, and no.. they weren't repeats. :)
Ya I agree, as much as the internet, forums and review sites are nice, they are a pale comparison to actual face to face discussions.
Last AMD i owned was a socket A .
Mine too.. Although its still going! I have an XP2400+ and an XP2700+ still being used daily for tasks in my office! :) The XP2700+ makes quite a good little machine that just sits there making MSI files when needed, and the 2400+ is still completely fine for everyday admin/email/web/invoicing use!
Nothing like drawing 90w for a single core. :D
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.12 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.