AMD has lived and died by their own allocations to R and D.

Blaming it on Intel's................

Well, I have said enough.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

AMD has lived and died by their own allocations to R and D.

Blaming it on Intel's................

Well, I have said enough.

I'd like to remind you, if Intel would have had their way in the past, you probably wouldn't be contributing to seti at all, since if they had, AMD wouldn't exist and you couldn't afford the cost of an Intel processor.

Thanks to AMD, they have kept Intel prices at least a little bit more in line with reality.

Allen

---

AMD has lived and died by their own allocations to R and D.

Blaming it on Intel's................

Well, I have said enough.

I'd like to remind you, if Intel would have had their way in the past, you probably wouldn't be contributing to seti at all, since if they had, AMD wouldn't exist and you couldn't afford the cost of an Intel processor.

Thanks to AMD, they have kept Intel prices at least a little bit more in line with reality.

Allen

And if it weren't for IBM requiring a "second source" in case Intel couldn't fulfill all of IBM's orders during the begining days of the PC, and if Intel didn't pick the fledgling company AMD to be it's second source, AMD wouldn't even be in the market in the first place.

Intel created the x86 architecture and had to practically give it away because IBM required it as it's business terms. Without Intel, we'd all be using ridiculously expensive Mortorola processors in ridiculously expensive Macs, and only the most afluent would be able to afford them.

AMD has lived and died by their own allocations to R and D.

Blaming it on Intel's................

Well, I have said enough.

I'd like to remind you, if Intel would have had their way in the past, you probably wouldn't be contributing to seti at all, since if they had, AMD wouldn't exist and you couldn't afford the cost of an Intel processor.

Thanks to AMD, they have kept Intel prices at least a little bit more in line with reality.

Allen

And if it weren't for IBM requiring a "second source" in case Intel couldn't fulfill all of IBM's orders during the begining days of the PC, and if Intel didn't pick the fledgling company AMD to be it's second source, AMD wouldn't even be in the market in the first place.

Intel created the x86 architecture and had to practically give it away because IBM required it as it's business terms. Without Intel, we'd all be using ridiculously expensive Mortorola processors in ridiculously expensive Macs, and only the most afluent would be able to afford them.

Whoa, not necessarily, we might all be using the Amiga, which was really better than all the others at the time.

Btw, you should be giving IBM the credit anyway, not Intel. Next you'll be telling us the Bill Gates is our savior.

Allen

---

Annnddddd it begins

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

And on the seventh day, God created the core2.

'Nuff said.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

AMD has lived and died by their own allocations to R and D.

Blaming it on Intel's................

Well, I have said enough.

I'd like to remind you, if Intel would have had their way in the past, you probably wouldn't be contributing to seti at all, since if they had, AMD wouldn't exist and you couldn't afford the cost of an Intel processor.

Thanks to AMD, they have kept Intel prices at least a little bit more in line with reality.

Allen

And if it weren't for IBM requiring a "second source" in case Intel couldn't fulfill all of IBM's orders during the begining days of the PC, and if Intel didn't pick the fledgling company AMD to be it's second source, AMD wouldn't even be in the market in the first place.

Intel created the x86 architecture and had to practically give it away because IBM required it as it's business terms. Without Intel, we'd all be using ridiculously expensive Mortorola processors in ridiculously expensive Macs, and only the most afluent would be able to afford them.

Whoa, not necessarily, we might all be using the Amiga, which was really better than all the others at the time.

Btw, you should be giving IBM the credit anyway, not Intel. Next you'll be telling us the Bill Gates is our savior.

Allen

I was giving IBM all the credit for forcing Intel to choose an second source. I was giving Intel all the credit for creating the x86 market.

Next you'll be purposely misrepresenting my posts and taking jabs at my stances without evidence or a fair chance.

And before I get any gaff from the pro-AMD camp.........

Let me remind you that my first computer was based on a 233mmx Intel.......
But I switched to AMD Semprons when they offered the best bang/buck.

I changed back when the core2 processors came out and they proceeded to kick AMD's butt right off of the Seti boards in terms of processing power and overclockablility.

The top 2 hosts on the project happen to be AMD's right now........
But that's because of the GPUs they are hosting.
Not because of their processing power.

Everything else on down is all Intel.

If GPUs were not factored in, I would hazard a guess that there would still not be an AMD in the top 100.

check out the price for 1 i7 980X and the price for 3 Phenom II 1090 hmmm the price for all 3 AMD chips is only $900 the I7 > $1000 so I can buy 3 AMD chips that run just as fast as your I7 giving me 18 true cores to your hyperthreaded 12. Buy the Mobo for that Intel too. for that cost I can afford 3 Mobos for my AMDs. AMD chips are just cheaper to buy and run. The AMDs also run cooler and use less power than your i7. Sure chip to chip the intels are faster. Its like the germans and their socalled superior tanks in WWII. I can put more "tanks" out there doing more work than you can with your 1 "tank"

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

And before I get any gaff from the pro-AMD camp.........

Let me remind you that my first computer was based on a 233mmx Intel.......
But I switched to AMD Semprons when they offered the best bang/buck.

I changed back when the core2 processors came out and they proceeded to kick AMD's butt right off of the Seti boards in terms of processing power and overclockablility.

The top 2 hosts on the project happen to be AMD's right now........
But that's because of the GPUs they are hosting.
Not because of their processing power.

Everything else on down is all Intel.

If GPUs were not factored in, I would hazard a guess that there would still not be an AMD in the top 100.

check out the price for 1 i7 980X and the price for 3 Phenom II 1090 hmmm the price for all 3 AMD chips is only $900 the I7 > $1000 so I can buy 3 AMD chips that run just as fast as your I7 giving me 18 true cores to your hyperthreaded 12. Buy the Mobo for that Intel too. for that cost I can afford 3 Mobos for my AMDs. AMD chips are just cheaper to buy and run. The AMDs also run cooler and use less power than your i7. Sure chip to chip the intels are faster. Its like the germans and their socalled superior tanks in WWII. I can put more "tanks" out there doing more work than you can with your 1 "tank"

That's what made me choose for AMD this time.

The Intel Core i7 970 is 40-50% faster at Seti as the Phenom II X6 1055T but it's 400% more expensive...

---

Rig name: "x6Crunchy"
OS: Win 7 x64
MB: Asus M4N98TD EVO
CPU: AMD X6 1055T 2.8(1,2v)
GPU: 2x Asus GTX560ti
Member of: Dutch Power Cows

the newest chip is always the most expensive. I always buy (ALL computers/parts/etc) about 6 months to a year after it drops down a stop from the top. It saves thousands.

---

Janice

Talking about prices now??

Every first Gen chippy I ever bought was over $1000.00........
AND gave no bargains.....don't try to BS me about bargains for the common user.

If you want top shelf, you pay top shelf, AMD or Intel.

SO let's cut that bit of BS out of the conversation.

Whether it filtered down to common users is another topic.....

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

as mentioned the AMD Phenom II 1090T is only $299.99 which is significantly lower than $1000 as previously mentioned by yours truly. Intel is just not smart money.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

as mentioned the AMD Phenom II 1090T is only $299.99 which is significantly lower than $1000 as previously mentioned by yours truly. Intel is just not smart money.

Bite me......
Intel's finest came down in price once the market was established just as any AMD chippy did......

Quit making news of dogs that don't hunt.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

If you choose to change metaphors, fine. I'd put 3 highend currs(AMD's) that still cost less than your high end Purebred(intel) any day and I'd still have money in my pocket to buy a few cold ones while I sit back and gloat

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

If you choose to change metaphors, fine. I'd put 3 highend currs(AMD's) that still cost less than your high end Purebred(intel) any day and I'd still have money in my pocket to buy a few cold ones while I sit back and gloat

And I'd still beat ya in a dead heat........any day.
So go posture. You wanna pay $20.00 less over the life of the processor?
Let's say a few quadrillion ops.......

Who has won?

Kitties win!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

as stated I get to run my 3 vs your 1. first you lose for dollar to dollar comparison. Heck i can just buy more AMD CPU for a dollar than you can. It's not even fair. So you still think that you can win when we spend an equal amount of money? thats like buying an American made dress vs. buying a chinese made one. For the money saved I can buy much more than you.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

as stated I get to run my 3 vs your 1. first you lose for dollar to dollar comparison. Heck i can just buy more AMD CPU for a dollar than you can. It's not even fair. So you still think that you can win when we spend an equal amount of money? thats like buying an American made dress vs. buying a chinese made one. For the money saved I can buy much more than you.

And you look so pretty in that Chinese dress.........

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

AMD processors are better at communicating than Intel.

Intel is silicon for the "Unwashed Masses".

ok, that's wrong on so many levels ....

One main reason why AMD even still exists, is the fact that you could easily overclock the sucker and beat the crap out of a cheap chip until it dies after 6 months, and then replace it without crying a tear over the money.

Intel on the other hand was almost impossible to overclock in the past, but if you let the chip run at spec, it would run until the end of time. That kind of quality had it's price, though.

If one of the two chips is for the unwashed masses, then it's the AMD, because in general unwashed masses are also short on money.

---

AMD processors are better at communicating than Intel.

Intel is silicon for the "Unwashed Masses".

ok, that's wrong on so many levels ....

One main reason why AMD even still exists, is the fact that you could easily overclock the sucker and beat the crap out of a cheap chip until it dies after 6 months, and then replace it without crying a tear over the money.

Intel on the other hand was almost impossible to overclock in the past, but if you let the chip run at spec, it would run until the end of time. That kind of quality had it's price, though.

If one of the two chips is for the unwashed masses, then it's the AMD, because in general unwashed masses are also short on money.

That may be one view.

Another view that I very strongly suspect is that Intel went to play "the numbers game" by squandering their silicon area on ever faster FPUs for multi-media applications so that their Marketing machine could claim to be the baddest and fastest in various artificial benchmarks. Meanwhile, Intel lurched onwards continuing with a very old and out of date FSB that was shown on many occasions to be a throughput bottleneck. Also, just don't mention the P4 fiasco, cripplingly all in the name of doubling the GHz!...

Meanwhile, AMD garnered a very good reputation for server applications for offering very good data throughput with their on-die memory controller, on-die crossbar switch, and "Hyper Transport" links.

Intel copied those features from AMD only recently for their CPUs.


I think the most ridiculous waste of silicon I've seen were the Intel ideas of putting MBytes of cache RAM on the North Bridge FSB to try to mitigate some of the FSB bottleneck problems!


The important thing is how well the entire system works and how well balanced the entire system is for cost/performance.

The only advantage I've seen for the Intel Marketing is that we've gained faster Intel CPUs ideally suited for number crunchin'. However, many people have wasted their money on fast FPU numbers that they never need and rarely use.

In the real world, all my servers are AMD to get the job done in the best way. Some have been running 24/7 for over a decade and still hold their own for their tasks.

Have we really hit a design limit at about 3GHz CPU clock for 32nm silicon x86 architecture?


Happy crunchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)