OT: (well kind of off-topic)....ZDNET Poll - Who Makes Better CPU's?

Wow....have you guys seen this? This blew me away......stumbled on this looking for some "tweak-programs" for this ASUS mobo problem reported to you below. Make sure you are sitting down when you click on the link below! http://cgi.zdnet.com/zdpoll/question.html?pollid=22478&action=a&n=ip Tom

Why thats not a surprising finding....makes perfect sense. Intel has been caught napping...my Athlon 1.46mhz purchased for 225 dollars smokes anything in that price range or higher by Intel. PAPA DOC

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >Make sure you are sitting down when you click on the link below! > >http://cgi.zdnet.com/zdpoll/question.html?pollid=22478&action=a&n=ip > >Tom > >

Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Flanker Target Grand Prix Legends Crash Test Dummy Rants, Bullshit and Help Guides availible at www.papadoc.net

How many apps or programs take advantage of P4 architecture? This is not a smart ass reply. I really would like to know. Could AMD get left behind when programmers start to write programs and games for the P4? -- Alastair Ingram www.saxlessons.com ICQ#108243828 "Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Yrb07.147512$%[email hidden]... Wow....have you guys seen this? This blew me away......stumbled on this looking for some "tweak-programs" for this ASUS mobo problem reported to you below. Make sure you are sitting down when you click on the link below! http://cgi.zdnet.com/zdpoll/question.html?pollid=22478&action=a&n=ip Tom

In article <Yrb07.147512$%[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Wow....have you guys seen this? This blew me away......stumbled on this > looking for some "tweak-programs" for this ASUS mobo problem reported to you > below. > > Make sure you are sitting down when you click on the link below! > > http://cgi.zdnet.com/zdpoll/question.html?pollid=22478&action=a&n=ip

It's not surprising, it'll be a poll predominantly driven by consumer voting. However, I doubt Intel has too much to worry about especially since picking up the R&D to the Alpha chip. Consumer market is a drop in the pond when it comes to PC sales. Cheers, Rod.

Well, I don't know if they're any better but they sure are strong. Recently I had to configure a box for a customer (transfer his E-mail and stuff from the old one), a Compaq Pressario 1.2Ghz Athlon. Unbeknown to me a piece of transportation tape had been left inside and found it's way into the processor fan. That processor spent 4 hours cooking itself before I opened the case to check if the constant locking up could have something to do with a card or connector not being properly seated (one doesn't expect something like that to happen in a brand new Compaq). Burned my fingers on the heatsink at the time, but with ventilation restored it's still running reliably now. Score one for AMD as far as I'm concerned. Jan. =--- "Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn. "Tom Pabst" wrote... > Wow....have you guys seen this? This blew me > away......stumbled on this looking for some > "tweak-programs" for this ASUS mobo problem > reported to you below.

I will not call this a smart ass program but do you realize the extent of what you say , Not only do the PC industry wants us to change our PC every 2 years or so but then you would imply that we would have to change our software every 2 years when the programmers take into account the "new" functions of each chip.... I remember the good old days of the MMX instructions, Pentium pro instructions, Pentium II, Pentium III, AMD for their part just had some special 3Dnow coding... Do you realize if Papy had to make a GPL for P2, then add some "special" code for P3 then for P4 when it is released...if you start down this road you will soon end up having special video boards instructions, sound instructions.... I think it is up to the chip manufacturers to adapt to the thousands of programs out in this world and not have the software companies adapt to whatever crap the Intel marketing department comes out with to justify higher price and lower capacity..."You pay more, for less speed...BUT you have the special instructions set"... What a joke from them...and it works, some people still hang on to intel for "compatibility reasons"... "Alastair Ingram" <[email hidden]> a �crit dans le message news: vrc07.28435$[email hidden]... > How many apps or programs take advantage of P4 architecture? This is not a > smart ass reply. I really would like to know. Could AMD get left behindwhen

Quoted text (10 lines)

> programmers start to write programs and games for the P4? > > -- > Alastair Ingram > www.saxlessons.com > ICQ#108243828 > "Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Yrb07.147512$%[email hidden]... > Wow....have you guys seen this? This blew me away......stumbled on this > looking for some "tweak-programs" for this ASUS mobo problem reported to

you

Quoted text (11 lines)

> below. > > Make sure you are sitting down when you click on the link below! > > http://cgi.zdnet.com/zdpoll/question.html?pollid=22478&action=a&n=ip > > Tom > > > > dNow

On Tue, 03 Jul 2001 05:08:43 GMT, "Alastair Ingram" <[email hidden]> wrote: >How many apps or programs take advantage of P4 architecture? This is not a >smart ass reply. I really would like to know. Could AMD get left behind when >programmers start to write programs and games for the P4? I think its pretty damn stupid to design a cpu that needs to have software specifically written for it to perform well. The athlon beats the p4 everywhere, and then when software is written for 3dnow!, then it absolutely creams it! Dunno who would pay twice as much for a cpu that won't run properly for another 6-12 months. AMD won't get left behind, they'll stay in front. The Athlon4 will use SSE2 as well as 3dnow!, so any software optimised for Intel will also be optimised for AMD. The future of AMD is looking bright IMHO. Well, goes to show that if you make a good product, people will sit up and take notice. Kudos to AMD. They make a killer cpu. Now if only they'd make a killer mobo chipset...

On Tue, 03 Jul 2001 10:20:44 GMT, [email hidden] (Rafe McAuliffe) wrote: >Well, goes to show that if you make a good product, people will sit up >and take notice. Kudos to AMD. They make a killer cpu. Now if only >they'd make a killer mobo chipset... > What's wrong with AMD760 chipset? It's rock solid on this FIC-AD11 mb I have.

Stability, thy name is Grand Prix Legends. We are blessed with a game that was released 3 years ago this fall, and is still gradually being improved, both by the sim community and--mirabile dictu!--its original developers (as opposed to, say, Falcon 4.0). I remember springing for a P2-400 and a Voodoo 2 to run GPL. Smokin'! Now, what with all the high-polygon trax, 3D wheels, and heavy-duty online play, you need an 1-gig Athlon T'bird for a smooth frame-rate. I don't mind. I'd probably have upgraded to the same level by now to play Unreal Tournament or MS Train Simulator. The next Big Bump is gonna be a GeForce 3 and a 1.7-gig CPU for WSC. I hope it's worth it. --Steve Smith "Txl" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:4Vg07.4333$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (24 lines)

> I will not call this a smart ass program but do you realize the extent of > what you say , > > Not only do the PC industry wants us to change our PC every 2 years or so > but then you would imply that we would have to change our software every 2 > years when the programmers take into account the "new" functions of each > chip.... > > I remember the good old days of the MMX instructions, Pentium pro > instructions, Pentium II, Pentium III, AMD for their part just had some > special 3Dnow coding... > > Do you realize if Papy had to make a GPL for P2, then add some "special" > code for P3 then for P4 when it is released...if you start down this road > you will soon end up having special video boards instructions, sound > instructions.... > > I think it is up to the chip manufacturers to adapt to the thousands of > programs out in this world and not have the software companies adapt to > whatever crap the Intel marketing department comes out with to justify > higher price and lower capacity..."You pay more, for less speed...BUT you > have the special instructions set"... > > What a joke from them...and it works, some people still hang on to intel

for > "compatibility reasons"... > > > "Alastair Ingram" <[email hidden]> a �crit dans le message news: > vrc07.28435$[email hidden]... > > How many apps or programs take advantage of P4 architecture? This is nota

Quoted text (26 lines)

> > smart ass reply. I really would like to know. Could AMD get left behind > when > > programmers start to write programs and games for the P4? > > > > -- > > Alastair Ingram > > www.saxlessons.com > > ICQ#108243828 > > "Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:Yrb07.147512$%[email hidden]... > > Wow....have you guys seen this? This blew me away......stumbled on this > > looking for some "tweak-programs" for this ASUS mobo problem reported to > you > > below. > > > > Make sure you are sitting down when you click on the link below! > > > > http://cgi.zdnet.com/zdpoll/question.html?pollid=22478&action=a&n=ip > > > > Tom > > > > > > > > dNow > >

Yea cuz AMD is a lot cheaper verses Intel, thats all!! "Tom Pabst" wrote: | Wow....have you guys seen this? This blew me away......stumbled on this | looking for some "tweak-programs" for this ASUS mobo problem reported toyou | below. | Make sure you are sitting down when you click on the link below! | http://cgi.zdnet.com/zdpoll/question.html?pollid=22478&action=a&n=ip | Tom --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.262 / Virus Database: 132 - Release Date: 6/12/2001

Txl wrote: > Do you realize if Papy had to make a GPL for P2, then add some "special" > code for P3 then for P4 when it is released... ...that we would be on GPL 3 right now!! Damn, we need changes. <g> -- Fester

On Tue, 03 Jul 2001 12:29:47 GMT, Uncle Fester <[email hidden]> wrote: > >Txl wrote: >> Do you realize if Papy had to make a GPL for P2, then add some "special" >> code for P3 then for P4 when it is released... > >...that we would be on GPL 3 right now!! Damn, we need changes. <g>hey ianm, you were right again... Regards all, istoff "Its easy to get lost in thought if you don't go there often" - Me, 1993

istoff, i'm really interested by your pitboard editing tool, any ETA ? How is the beta running ? Can you include a feature to get back to the "original values" as i have messed quite badly with them so my .ini file is not really standard anymore... Congrats and thanks <istoff> a �crit dans le message news: [email hidden]... > On Tue, 03 Jul 2001 12:29:47 GMT, Uncle Fester <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > > > >Txl wrote: > >> Do you realize if Papy had to make a GPL for P2, then add some"special"

Quoted text (12 lines)

> >> code for P3 then for P4 when it is released... > > > >...that we would be on GPL 3 right now!! Damn, we need changes. <g> > hey ianm, > > you were right again... > > Regards all, > istoff > > "Its easy to get lost in thought > if you don't go there often" - Me, 1993

> AMD won't get left behind, they'll stay in front. The Athlon4 will use > SSE2 as well as 3dnow!, so any software optimised for Intel will also > be optimised for AMD. The future of AMD is looking bright IMHO. >I cannot phrase it in a better way, why pay 20 or 30% extra for the same (if not less) performance , if you want to spend the extra money anyway get some extra RAM or a bigger HD...

On Tue, 03 Jul 2001 14:03:09 GMT, "Txl" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>istoff, i'm really interested by your pitboard editing tool, any ETA ? How >is the beta running ? >Can you include a feature to get back to the "original values" as i have >messed quite badly with them so my .ini file is not really standard >anymore... > >Congrats and thanks

http://members.fortunecity.com/istoff/gpl/ try it yourself :) it *does* keep the original values as well :) let me know if it solves your problem. Regards all, istoff

The bottom line is that competition is a good thing. I didn't mean to get you AMD fans on the defensive. Things change and we must all adapt to those changes. Programmers do write programs to take advantage of the latest designs, whoever designs them. I do upgrade my software and hardware to keep up with changes, doesn't everyone? Respectfully, Alastair Ingram. "Txl" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:4Vg07.4333$[email hidden]... I will not call this a smart ass program but do you realize the extent of what you say , Not only do the PC industry wants us to change our PC every 2 years or so but then you would imply that we would have to change our software every 2 years when the programmers take into account the "new" functions of each chip.... I remember the good old days of the MMX instructions, Pentium pro instructions, Pentium II, Pentium III, AMD for their part just had some special 3Dnow coding... Do you realize if Papy had to make a GPL for P2, then add some "special" code for P3 then for P4 when it is released...if you start down this road you will soon end up having special video boards instructions, sound instructions.... I think it is up to the chip manufacturers to adapt to the thousands of programs out in this world and not have the software companies adapt to whatever crap the Intel marketing department comes out with to justify higher price and lower capacity..."You pay more, for less speed...BUT you have the special instructions set"... What a joke from them...and it works, some people still hang on to intel for "compatibility reasons"... "Alastair Ingram" <[email hidden]> a �crit dans le message news: vrc07.28435$[email hidden]... > How many apps or programs take advantage of P4 architecture? This is not a > smart ass reply. I really would like to know. Could AMD get left behindwhen

Quoted text (10 lines)

> programmers start to write programs and games for the P4? > > -- > Alastair Ingram > www.saxlessons.com > ICQ#108243828 > "Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Yrb07.147512$%[email hidden]... > Wow....have you guys seen this? This blew me away......stumbled on this > looking for some "tweak-programs" for this ASUS mobo problem reported to

you

Quoted text (11 lines)

> below. > > Make sure you are sitting down when you click on the link below! > > http://cgi.zdnet.com/zdpoll/question.html?pollid=22478&action=a&n=ip > > Tom > > > > dNow

Nothing at all wrong with the 760 chipset, just that they aren't making them anymore. They've only ever made low-volume chipsets, until VIA (and others) make a similar chipset, then they stop making them. They need to go for high production (like they are with the 760MP chipset) to allow their CPUs to run on the highest quality mobos. It's not the best to rely on VIA to produce their chipsets for them. Rafe Mc >What's wrong with AMD760 chipset? It's rock solid on this FIC-AD11 mb >I have.

On Tue, 03 Jul 2001 12:28:44 GMT, "Thom j." <[email hidden]> wrote: >Yea cuz AMD is a lot cheaper verses Intel, thats all!! >Plus they make a faster CPU :) What more can you ask for?

For now...lol but dont think for one minute Intel is just sitting back with their heads up their dupas` not doing anything.. Just wait, u'll see 8>} "Rafe McAuliffe" wrote: | Plus they make a faster CPU :) What more can you ask for? Me wrote: | >Yea cuz AMD is a lot cheaper verses Intel, thats all!! --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.262 / Virus Database: 132 - Release Date: 6/12/2001

Very good point, Alastair! Tom

No...they are certainly "not sitting back on their dupas"....... The smart ones are busy scurrying to their brokers and telling them to quietly dump their "founders stock" in small pieces.......because they know when they are finally forced to sell their product at reasonable prices....there will be major-league hell to pay with their "bottom-line".....and that means they'll draw the wrath of the stockholder's board....and Wall Street! Intel has a very "short memory".....they don't remember how "BIG" the name IBM was in the computer industry several years (eons) ago......and how fast that company (who was bigger than Intel .....in its heyday).....was brought to their knees. "Price gouging" was one of the downfalls of IBM. One very real and powerful characteristic of the computer industry.......now and always was..........is that the "top of the heap has little if any **foundation**........the distance of the fall is the only thing that separates the giants from the little guys!" Microsoft just got a sniff.....at the vulnerability of thinking you are "invincible." Intel is about to get put to their test! Tom

Agreed totally. Anyone seen the price of the Intel Xeons? In most areas, a simple dual 1.2ghz athlon system will BEAT a dual 1.7ghz Xeon system! US$507 x2 for the Xeons, $276 x2 for 1.2ghzMP tbirds. P4s are only for people who like to mention how many ghz their cpu runs at IMHO and die-hard Intel fans. Plus a hefty price hit for some RDRAM, makes for alot of people looking to AMD servers instead of the traditional Intel. I can't see Intel heading down the same road as IBM personally, doesn't Intel hold a significant amount of AMD shares? But the competition is the best thing since sliced bread. Rafe Mc On Wed, 04 Jul 2001 05:00:57 GMT, "Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (22 lines)

>No...they are certainly "not sitting back on their dupas"....... > >The smart ones are busy scurrying to their brokers and telling them to >quietly dump their "founders stock" in small pieces.......because they know >when they are finally forced to sell their product at reasonable >prices....there will be major-league hell to pay with their >"bottom-line".....and that means they'll draw the wrath of the stockholder's >board....and Wall Street! > >Intel has a very "short memory".....they don't remember how "BIG" the name >IBM was in the computer industry several years (eons) ago......and how fast >that company (who was bigger than Intel .....in its heyday).....was brought >to their knees. "Price gouging" was one of the downfalls of IBM. One very >real and powerful characteristic of the computer industry.......now and >always was..........is that the "top of the heap has little if any >**foundation**........the distance of the fall is the only thing that >separates the giants from the little guys!" Microsoft just got a >sniff.....at the vulnerability of thinking you are "invincible." Intel is >about to get put to their test! > >Tom >

Ermmm..... I think AMD have a much different approach to their "price war" than you think (based on the IBM comparison). Lets look at a few well known facts. 1) AMD can actually SUPPLY that demand (they have manufacturing plants ready to "step up" production upon demand)... whereas... Intel is woefully short to even accomadate current demand... pathetically actually. 2) Dell and the others actually have a problem with #1. Meaning... they have chips already on order... yet unsupplied (their current cache is strained but not to an unsuppliable level... but very disconcerting nonetheless) 3) The AMD simply outperforms the Intel... unbiased view... really. 4) AMD is set to start implementing multi-processor configurations (at 64-bit no less).... something DEC ALPHA (now discontinued by Compaq), and Intel (their 64-bit configs are still 'pending') have had their open-take (server markets). 5) AMD implementation take advantage of new BUS designs/optimizations... not "program specific speed increases inherit to processor type' designs... such as Intel are hopelessly pursuing (just to keep up with AMD performance at face value). 6) AMD are betting on new SDRAM-hybrid (DDR-RAM which is global design acceptance) optimizations, as opposed to Intel who are betting on teh rogue RAMBUS chip design (can you recall the OS2 fiasco of IBM parallel?) 7) As an end user..... I have these 3 subsets to look at: 7a) The AMD is simply faster at face value (lesser MHz outperforms Intels higher MHz offerings... whoops! intel) 7b) Woohoo... it is cheaper 7c) Less overall program changes needed to implement new designs since it is more hardware/OS level support more than anything (sub topic chat on this original post above this comes to mind) Bottonline for 'me' is: Intel's hayday is done. They are slower... cannot meet demand... and seem woefully content (lest I say 'complacent') in throwing their eggs in one basket (RAMBUS RAM, etc.) whereas AMD are shamefully outperforming them with little/no optimizations required, and making VAST headway on strategic alliances with sub-set hardware manufacturers to fully support their technology. BIAS: I have ALWAYS disliked Intel for many reasons (it has grown over the years): 1) When they put pressure on sub-hardware manufacturers to NOT support AMD or lose strategic alliances with them (this from a few horses' mouths directly) 2) When they pushed their market position to force ridiculous hardware prices on the end-user (PII bullshit) 3) When they had the audacity to push the MHz meter as the 'benchmark for performance globally' as they did with the PII (when were they going to address bus-speed?) 4) When they decided that a complete rewrite of how optimizations for performance for their processor would rest on teh programmers of software to comply wholeheartedly with their direction (hello! hardware is trying to keep up with software... not the other way around morons-Intel) Anyways... that is my 50 bucks I couldn't help but contribute... but that's just my take... not necessarily something that should alter a buying decision by the guys/gals here. Cheers, Schumi "Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:dqx07.150511$%[email hidden]... | No...they are certainly "not sitting back on their dupas"....... | | The smart ones are busy scurrying to their brokers and telling them to | quietly dump their "founders stock" in small pieces.......because theyknow | when they are finally forced to sell their product at reasonable | prices....there will be major-league hell to pay with their | "bottom-line".....and that means they'll draw the wrath of thestockholder's | board....and Wall Street! | | Intel has a very "short memory".....they don't remember how "BIG" the name | IBM was in the computer industry several years (eons) ago......and howfast | that company (who was bigger than Intel .....in its heyday).....wasbrought | to their knees. "Price gouging" was one of the downfalls of IBM. Onevery

Quoted text (10 lines)

| real and powerful characteristic of the computer industry.......now and | always was..........is that the "top of the heap has little if any | **foundation**........the distance of the fall is the only thing that | separates the giants from the little guys!" Microsoft just got a | sniff.....at the vulnerability of thinking you are "invincible." Intel is | about to get put to their test! | | Tom | |

On Wed, 04 Jul 2001 05:00:57 GMT, "Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >Intel has a very "short memory".....they don't remember how "BIG" the name >IBM was in the computer industry several years (eons) ago......and how fast >that company (who was bigger than Intel .....in its heyday).....was brought >to their knees. "Price gouging" was one of the downfalls of IBM. One very >real and powerful characteristic of the computer industry.......now and >Tom >

quick question. i don't have any insight into this, but my impression is that IBM still is bigger than INTEL as a company. I've always understood that because of the diversity of the products they sell combined with the massive R&D department(maybe in the past), that they own lots of patents and technologies and are therefore still quite big. Has things changed that much for big blue? Regards all, istoff "Its easy to get lost in thought if you don't go there often" - Me, 1993

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > Agreed totally. Anyone seen the price of the Intel Xeons? In most > areas, a simple dual 1.2ghz athlon system will BEAT a dual 1.7ghz Xeon > system! US$507 x2 for the Xeons, $276 x2 for 1.2ghzMP tbirds. P4s are > only for people who like to mention how many ghz their cpu runs at > IMHO and die-hard Intel fans. How many Athlons can you put in a multiprocessor system? How many vendors market a multiprocessor Athlon? Cheers, Rod.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > 3) The AMD simply outperforms the Intel... unbiased view... really. General statement, depends on the application of the chip. > 4) AMD is set to start implementing multi-processor configurations (at > 64-bit no less).... something DEC ALPHA (now discontinued by Compaq), and > Intel (their 64-bit configs are still 'pending') have had their open-take > (server markets). Since when has the Alpha been discontinued? Intel and Compaq are merging their chip technology, hence their design and implementation has already had 10 years of proven design and performance. I'd be inclined to believe that AMD are behind the 8 ball if you're going to compare the two. Cheers, Rod.

Well Tom I agree with some of your points but not all!! I come from a family of IBM'ers & AT&T'ers that were "decision" makers back in the so called "hay'day" but thank god my family knew when to fold them & not buy into the "I am #1 & always will be" attitude! Bottom line: Yes *if* Intel doesnt pay attention in class they will falter and fall but I do not feel they have the attitude of the old IBMs & AT&Ts!! If they do then so be it but the folks at Intel know AMD is right there biting at their heels & they must keep up or bow out! But only time will tell..eh? Thats my cent & 1/2s worth :-) Cheers Thom_j. "Tom Pabst" wrote: | No...they are certainly "not sitting back on their dupas"....... | | The smart ones are busy scurrying to their brokers and telling them to | quietly dump their "founders stock" in small pieces.......because theyknow | when they are finally forced to sell their product at reasonable | prices....there will be major-league hell to pay with their | "bottom-line".....and that means they'll draw the wrath of thestockholder's | board....and Wall Street! | | Intel has a very "short memory".....they don't remember how "BIG" the name | IBM was in the computer industry several years (eons) ago......and howfast | that company (who was bigger than Intel .....in its heyday).....wasbrought | to their knees. "Price gouging" was one of the downfalls of IBM. Onevery

Quoted text (8 lines)

| real and powerful characteristic of the computer industry.......now and | always was..........is that the "top of the heap has little if any | **foundation**........the distance of the fall is the only thing that | separates the giants from the little guys!" Microsoft just got a | sniff.....at the vulnerability of thinking you are "invincible." Intel is | about to get put to their test! | | Tom

--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.262 / Virus Database: 132 - Release Date: 6/12/2001

On Wed, 04 Jul 2001 09:12:56 GMT, Rod Prince <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] >says... > >> 3) The AMD simply outperforms the Intel... unbiased view... really. > >General statement, depends on the application of the chip. >

Agreed, it does depend on the application. BUT 80% of the applications used today run faster on AMD CPUs - the 1ghz PIII even outperforms the 1.5 ghz P4 in certain circumstances. There are very few situations where a P4 is faster, so the general consensus is (not unreasonably) that AMD is faster

Quoted text (12 lines)

>> 4) AMD is set to start implementing multi-processor configurations (at >> 64-bit no less).... something DEC ALPHA (now discontinued by Compaq), and >> Intel (their 64-bit configs are still 'pending') have had their open-take >> (server markets). > >Since when has the Alpha been discontinued? > >Intel and Compaq are merging their chip technology, hence their design >and implementation has already had 10 years of proven design and >performance. I'd be inclined to believe that AMD are behind the 8 ball >if you're going to compare the two. >

AMD have only just entered the server market, so yes they are behind currently. But the 64 bit CPUs have been in design for a long while, and the 1.2 ghz multi-processor systems already beat 1.7ghz Xeon systems, at way under half price. That's not too shabby, and the roadmap looks pretty good IMO. Rafe Mc

On Wed, 04 Jul 2001 08:57:56 GMT, Rod Prince <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

>In article <[email hidden]>, >[email hidden] says... >> Agreed totally. Anyone seen the price of the Intel Xeons? In most >> areas, a simple dual 1.2ghz athlon system will BEAT a dual 1.7ghz Xeon >> system! US$507 x2 for the Xeons, $276 x2 for 1.2ghzMP tbirds. P4s are >> only for people who like to mention how many ghz their cpu runs at >> IMHO and die-hard Intel fans. > >How many Athlons can you put in a multiprocessor system? How many >vendors market a multiprocessor Athlon?

The systems were only released under a month ago, they are available pretty much anywhere despite this. The number of available mobos will explode in a couple of months with the 760MPX chipset as well. Yes you can run 4 Xeons in an Intel system, but they all share the same fsb bandwidth. Each CPU on an AMD board gets its own dedicated fsb channel, so when support for further processors is implemented, the performance gap will be pushed further in AMD's favour. And why would you want to pay for 3 Xeons at 1.7ghz, simply to match 2 1.2 ghz Athlons? Ridiculous! Rafe Mc

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/zd/20010627/tc/alpha_proved_costly_for_compaq_1 .html That's where I heard it first (Alpha discontinuation). I was always a fan of the Alpha technology (which was 10 years ahead of its time). Also note that the article states that it is a discontinuation by Compaq, and that Compaq are going to embrace the Itanium chipset in the future (because of existing multi-processor capabilities). But I suspect that Compaq will be looking at AMD shortly, when they see the new architectures in action. AMD is just now enterring teh Server Market, but the glowing difference is that the AMD chipsets utilize seperate busses int heir architecture. As ooposed to a single bus in teh Intel implementations. So you'll have 2 64-bit buses running in tandem, and thus removing many of the bottlenecks. It's not the "first" seperate bus architecture to hit the market, but up until now it has been a costly solution reserved only for Enterprise Servers and specialized manufacturers for that market. AMD is going the blow the doors off of that, and make it quasi-mainstream, for which I applaud. I'm not too worried about AMD being behind the 8-ball... they are making great headway with peripheral manufacturers, and adopting solutions that simply make sense, and are forward thinking. AMD are also going to be announcing a smaller dye size as well in the very near future... further boosting the performance capabilities again.... with room to spare. Whereas the Intel technology is already at it's peak, and they are now scrambling to find the solutions to keep up with AMD (Itanium specs do not look all that promising either when you compare them to the new AMD specs that will be released at the same time). AMD aren't in the 4-32 multi-processor range yet.... but I think we'll start to see those soon as AMD's strategic alliances with peripheral Mans. start to take shape, and they stretch their legs. In fact, I've always liked the "do it right... before you do it big" approach of AMD in the past. Personally... I haven't bought an Intel ship in years, its been AMD all the way for a while, and my bang for the buck has always left me feeling that I made the correct buying decision. Of course, some Intel fans may disagree, but I guess that is their prerogative and rightly so. Cheers, Schumi "Rod Prince" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:MPG.15ad895a1f5a22b39898e5@news-server...

Quoted text (9 lines)

| In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] | says... | | > 3) The AMD simply outperforms the Intel... unbiased view... really. | | General statement, depends on the application of the chip. | | > 4) AMD is set to start implementing multi-processor configurations (at | > 64-bit no less).... something DEC ALPHA (now discontinued by Compaq),

and | > Intel (their 64-bit configs are still 'pending') have had theiropen-take

Quoted text (12 lines)

| > (server markets). | | Since when has the Alpha been discontinued? | | Intel and Compaq are merging their chip technology, hence their design | and implementation has already had 10 years of proven design and | performance. I'd be inclined to believe that AMD are behind the 8 ball | if you're going to compare the two. | | Cheers, | Rod. |

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > That's where I heard it first (Alpha discontinuation). I was always a fan of > the Alpha technology (which was 10 years ahead of its time). Also note that > the article states that it is a discontinuation by Compaq, and that Compaq > are going to embrace the Itanium chipset in the future (because of existing > multi-processor capabilities). But I suspect that Compaq will be looking at > AMD shortly, when they see the new architectures in action. I briefly skimmed the article, it's rather misleading in the fact that the Alpha is essentially being discarded. That's not the case. The Alpha has been somewhat stagnant since the Digital/Compaq merger, the cost to R&D and produce the Alpha put a halt on further design and implementation. Teaming with Intel has provided the opportunity to lower R&D costs, produce the Alpha based core much cheaper than Compaq ever could and to aggressively market an Enterprise solution to take on the likes of IBM and Sun. Alpha at the moment is floundering against them because of the stagnant design of the Alpha. Compaq is relying on an Intel hybrid Alpha to be able to push a hell of a lot more Alphas out there and attempt to takeover the Enterprise space. The Compaq Intel server range competes exceptionally well against IBM and HP for instance. > AMD is just now enterring teh Server Market, but the glowing difference is > that the AMD chipsets utilize seperate busses int heir architecture. As > ooposed to a single bus in teh Intel implementations. > So you'll have 2 64-bit buses running in tandem, and thus removing many of > the bottlenecks. Depends on the server. I already work on servers that have 3 busses, 8 processors and 16GB or RAM. Utilising separate busses have been in Intel servers for a number of years now. The lower end of the market has had multiple bus architecture for quite awhile. Dual processor, 8GB servers. It however doesn't solve the problem where most servers suffer. Disk transfer and network bandwidth. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against AMD and my next machine is likely to be one. We can both argue how narrowminded it is for a company purchasing an Intel based server also purchase Intel based desktops and not AMD based, but that's the reality. AMD could have a nice slice of the consumer market but that's not where the money is. They have a lot of work to do to break into the commercial market. The only AMD PC's and servers you'll likely see in an office is ones where the IT manager is a rabid AMD fan. Cheers, Rod.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > AMD have only just entered the server market, so yes they are behind > currently. But the 64 bit CPUs have been in design for a long while, > and the 1.2 ghz multi-processor systems already beat 1.7ghz Xeon > systems, at way under half price. That's not too shabby, and the > roadmap looks pretty good IMO. Processor cost is almost negligable when it comes to costing a server. The few hundred dollar saving isn't neccessarily going to be seen when you price disk and memory. My argument is this; - Consumer market is only a small slice of the pie when it comes to processor sales. - AMD's market penetration on small to medium level servers in the commercial marketplace is almost insignificant. - Large vendors are marketing AMD to the home/consumer market but not as aggressively to the commercial market as they do 'Intel Inside' boxes. - An Intel server will generally mean Intel clients on the desktop. - Intel now have access to the algorithms that make the DEC Alpha chip what it is. I'm led to believe this is the single most hurdle that Intel just couldn't conquer... and when they came close, DEC was slapping a copywright infringement on them. ;) - Intel has provided the technology for 4 proccessor capable boxes since the MMX and 8 processor capable boxes since the P3 Xeons. Years of proven design in what the market wants, throwing more CPU's in the one box. - CPU bandwidth is rarely the bottleneck on a properly spec'ed machine. What AMD have done is nothing short of remarkable, greater CPU speed is going to be great for us gamers, but it's not neccessarily going to push processor sales up where they really need to be in the commercial market until they can start competing across the whole range of Intel based products. Either way, at the moment we're still in a win-win situation, and it's likely at the moment that my next machine will be an AMD. Cheers, Rod.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > >How many Athlons can you put in a multiprocessor system? How many > >vendors market a multiprocessor Athlon? > > The systems were only released under a month ago, they are available > pretty much anywhere despite this. The number of available mobos will > explode in a couple of months with the 760MPX chipset as well. I asked because I honestly didn't know. ;) I thought dual capable AMD's were around for awhile. > Yes you can run 4 Xeons in an Intel system 8. > but they all share the same fsb bandwidth. Not neccessarily. On a vanilla deskop, certainly. On a mid-range server, not neccessarily. > Each CPU on an AMD board gets its own dedicated > fsb channel, so when support for further processors is implemented, > the performance gap will be pushed further in AMD's favour. Have they released a brief on the design of their memory subsystem? Wouldn't mind taking a look at it. > And why would you want to pay for 3 Xeons at 1.7ghz, simply to match 2 > 1.2 ghz Athlons? Ridiculous! Processor speed isn't neccessarily the key to a server. Show me a server that doesn't spend the majority of its CPU time peaking at a maximum 10% processor utilisation. Disk and network are your bottlenecks in an exceptionally high number of cases in a properly spec'ed multiprocessor environment. The cost of improving disk and network speed makes the difference between an Intel chip and an AMD chip look like spare change. Intel already have thumbs firmly entrenched in both of those pies as well. If you can get the 'Big 4 - Compaq, IBM, HP, Dell' to start shipping these in any sort of volume, then AMD have a good platform to scare the heebeejeebee's out of Intel. Until then, they'll never reach the market penetration they desire (in my humble opinion, anyway). > Rafe Mc Cheers, Rod.

I agree with you wholeheartedly Rod. Multiple busses, etc. have been around for a while, but mainly in the Enterprise applications, and they (Intel) enjoy a no-real-competition status in there for now (hence the pricing). Currently specing an 4-8 processor server right now for my DB-server, and that leaves me with... well.... Intel. Although all my desktops and utility servers will be AMD. I'm really looking forward to enjoying some pricing wars in the dual processor marketplace so I can keep costs down... and will prolly go with AMD on those 'just because'. Either way... agree with you again... the competition/price-war can continue for another 30 years as far as my desires go... we the consumer do win in the end. BTW... on teh topic of disk access times/net-bandwidth issues.... you played around with any solid-state storage configs? They look pretty nice... but paaaaaarrrrrriiiiiiiiiccccyyyyyy! Although... what else would you expect from what might otherwise be simply looked at as a giant waffer box of RAM. Cheers, Schumi "Rod Prince" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:MPG.15ae2e956fddac409898e7@news-server... | In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] | says... | > That's where I heard it first (Alpha discontinuation). I was always afan of | > the Alpha technology (which was 10 years ahead of its time). Also notethat | > the article states that it is a discontinuation by Compaq, and thatCompaq | > are going to embrace the Itanium chipset in the future (because ofexisting | > multi-processor capabilities). But I suspect that Compaq will be lookingat

Quoted text (20 lines)

| > AMD shortly, when they see the new architectures in action. | | I briefly skimmed the article, it's rather misleading in the fact | that the Alpha is essentially being discarded. That's not the case. | The Alpha has been somewhat stagnant since the Digital/Compaq merger, | the cost to R&D and produce the Alpha put a halt on further design | and implementation. | | Teaming with Intel has provided the opportunity to lower R&D costs, | produce the Alpha based core much cheaper than Compaq ever could and | to aggressively market an Enterprise solution to take on the likes | of IBM and Sun. Alpha at the moment is floundering against them because | of the stagnant design of the Alpha. | | Compaq is relying on an Intel hybrid Alpha to be able to push a hell | of a lot more Alphas out there and attempt to takeover the Enterprise | space. The Compaq Intel server range competes exceptionally well | against IBM and HP for instance. | | > AMD is just now enterring teh Server Market, but the glowing difference

is | > that the AMD chipsets utilize seperate busses int heir architecture. As | > ooposed to a single bus in teh Intel implementations. | | > So you'll have 2 64-bit buses running in tandem, and thus removing manyof

Quoted text (23 lines)

| > the bottlenecks. | | Depends on the server. I already work on servers that have 3 busses, 8 | processors and 16GB or RAM. Utilising separate busses have been in Intel | servers for a number of years now. | | The lower end of the market has had multiple bus architecture for | quite awhile. Dual processor, 8GB servers. | | It however doesn't solve the problem where most servers suffer. Disk | transfer and network bandwidth. | | Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against AMD and my next machine is | likely to be one. We can both argue how narrowminded it is for a company | purchasing an Intel based server also purchase Intel based desktops and | not AMD based, but that's the reality. AMD could have a nice slice of | the consumer market but that's not where the money is. They have a lot | of work to do to break into the commercial market. The only AMD PC's and | servers you'll likely see in an office is ones where the IT manager is | a rabid AMD fan. | | Cheers, | Rod.

Like I said, competition is good. Go AMD!! It benefits all of us. -- Alastair Ingram www.saxlessons.com ICQ#108243828 "Schumi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... I agree with you wholeheartedly Rod. Multiple busses, etc. have been around for a while, but mainly in the Enterprise applications, and they (Intel) enjoy a no-real-competition status in there for now (hence the pricing). Currently specing an 4-8 processor server right now for my DB-server, and that leaves me with... well.... Intel. Although all my desktops and utility servers will be AMD. I'm really looking forward to enjoying some pricing wars in the dual processor marketplace so I can keep costs down... and will prolly go with AMD on those 'just because'. Either way... agree with you again... the competition/price-war can continue for another 30 years as far as my desires go... we the consumer do win in the end. BTW... on teh topic of disk access times/net-bandwidth issues.... you played around with any solid-state storage configs? They look pretty nice... but paaaaaarrrrrriiiiiiiiiccccyyyyyy! Although... what else would you expect from what might otherwise be simply looked at as a giant waffer box of RAM. Cheers, Schumi "Rod Prince" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:MPG.15ae2e956fddac409898e7@news-server... | In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] | says... | > That's where I heard it first (Alpha discontinuation). I was always a fan of | > the Alpha technology (which was 10 years ahead of its time). Also note that | > the article states that it is a discontinuation by Compaq, and that Compaq | > are going to embrace the Itanium chipset in the future (because of existing | > multi-processor capabilities). But I suspect that Compaq will be looking at | > AMD shortly, when they see the new architectures in action. | | I briefly skimmed the article, it's rather misleading in the fact | that the Alpha is essentially being discarded. That's not the case. | The Alpha has been somewhat stagnant since the Digital/Compaq merger, | the cost to R&D and produce the Alpha put a halt on further design | and implementation. | | Teaming with Intel has provided the opportunity to lower R&D costs, | produce the Alpha based core much cheaper than Compaq ever could and | to aggressively market an Enterprise solution to take on the likes | of IBM and Sun. Alpha at the moment is floundering against them because | of the stagnant design of the Alpha. | | Compaq is relying on an Intel hybrid Alpha to be able to push a hell | of a lot more Alphas out there and attempt to takeover the Enterprise | space. The Compaq Intel server range competes exceptionally well | against IBM and HP for instance. | | > AMD is just now enterring teh Server Market, but the glowing difference is | > that the AMD chipsets utilize seperate busses int heir architecture. As | > ooposed to a single bus in teh Intel implementations. | | > So you'll have 2 64-bit buses running in tandem, and thus removing many of | > the bottlenecks. | | Depends on the server. I already work on servers that have 3 busses, 8 | processors and 16GB or RAM. Utilising separate busses have been in Intel | servers for a number of years now. | | The lower end of the market has had multiple bus architecture for | quite awhile. Dual processor, 8GB servers. | | It however doesn't solve the problem where most servers suffer. Disk | transfer and network bandwidth. | | Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against AMD and my next machine is | likely to be one. We can both argue how narrowminded it is for a company | purchasing an Intel based server also purchase Intel based desktops and | not AMD based, but that's the reality. AMD could have a nice slice of | the consumer market but that's not where the money is. They have a lot | of work to do to break into the commercial market. The only AMD PC's and | servers you'll likely see in an office is ones where the IT manager is | a rabid AMD fan. | | Cheers, | Rod.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > I agree with you wholeheartedly Rod. > Multiple busses, etc. have been around for a while, but mainly in the > Enterprise applications, and they (Intel) enjoy a no-real-competition status > in there for now (hence the pricing). One could assume that end of the market you're competing against Alpha, IBM, Sun, i.e different processor families all-together. But generally a pricier, speedier and scalable alternative. > BTW... on teh topic of disk access times/net-bandwidth issues.... you played > around with any solid-state storage configs? They look pretty nice... but > paaaaaarrrrrriiiiiiiiiccccyyyyyy! Although... what else would you expect > from what might otherwise be simply looked at as a giant waffer box of RAM. Not as yet. The market where I am have only just begun to embrace fibre on SCSI disks in large storageworks boxes. I can't see too many Intel configs that would run solid state at its current prices. You could put together a solution with greater redundancy and higher availability with a few bucks to spare at the cost of some performance. But solid state seems to be marketed at the enterprise market that Intel can not yet reach. Cheers, Rod.

In article <4GN07.30425$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > Like I said, competition is good. Go AMD!! It benefits all of us. AMD is a godsend to the home user. It's difficult to say where Intel's technology would be without AMD pushing the envelope. I'm not yet convinced with AMD's potential in the office space, but it certainly can't do any harm. ;) Cheers, Rod.