I feel sorry for Intel... NOT!!! - Page 3

Mr. Dictator.

Sure, not for rewriting code and stuff. The software company with the biggest revenues (yes, MS passed IBM - BussinessWeek - don't remember date) can't make a 64 bit Windows in one year or so? Really? 64bits are real thing for a long time now. I think every step is planned by merchant reasons, not for the 'labor' of producting a 64 bit OS. When 64 bit became more popular, then MS anounced the release of that version. Linux have a 64 bit OS for quite a time now....

Not really. Think of two processors. the processor A encodes 1 videos in 30 minutes, costs $100. The processor B encodes 1 video in 24 minutes, and costs $150. A video professional have a computer that works 24/7 making VHS to DVD conversions for $4 each. Admitting and ideal scenario, where demand equals offer, he can make 24 hours x 2 videos per hour = 48 videos = $192 dollars/day with processor A. And 24 hours x 2.5 videos per hour = 60 videos = $240 dollars/day.

Obviously, the 33% dollar difference is not worth the 20% gain in a plain scenario. But, for this guy, I'm sure he will almost take the money difference in one day of work ($48 more) and, in the second day, he will start to _earn_ money, even spending more for a processor that is much more expensive than its real processor capacity. Obviously I made a very huge simplification, for there are more factors in the real life, but you got the idea.

That's why new processors are more expensive than the proportional gain in processor capacity, or else they wouldn't have profit. It's plain and simple.

So, my opinion is: HT can be a waste of money for common users like us, but sure it's not for some people over there.

It has a future, but it's not here yet. Ironically, the current AMD64 notebooks have a future of checking email and playing older (most likely 32-bit) games on a 64-bit OS, because they won't be up to running newer games. It makes no sense to buy an AMD64 notebook now using 64-bit future as a reason, since the main component of a gaming notebook, the GPU, will be old news long before 64-bit is mainstream. The OS won't even be out until next year sometime, let alone the 64-bit games.

You people are wearing out 64-bit before it gets here.

Idem.

Yes, I agree. For the future, it is.

TERRORISM!!!

And let me tell you, some of the people on this board are so emphatic about their love of AMD and hatred of Intel, I read there post and feel they are talking about "Zionists"...

Not to single out AMD-lovers, they just seem to be more er, defensive, about their chip, I couldn't care less, whatever works for me, if PM are better for lappy cause of the reasons mentioned here, then I go with PM for those, if AMD is cheaper and more powerful for desktops, then I would go with AMD.

Whoever said brand loyalty is stupid is right, companies use brand loyalty as a substitute for features and quality. Not that you can't like a company, but the point of brand loyalty is that you don't go looking for something better, even when there is something better.

Yes. The last desktop I bought is an Athlon 1700+, only because it was cheaper than a P4 and worked fine for me with a good MSI nvidia GeForce 440 64mb DDR, which still render games like UT (which I love), CS 1.5 (Steam is sh*t) and Diablo 2 L.O.D. (the best game ever) almost perfectly.

My father bought a laptop for him (I choose what was enough for him): Toshiba Celeron 2.4Ghz, 512 ddr and 30 gb. intel extreme (extreme ???) graphics.

Now, it's time to buy one for me: Cl56. (ATI graphics).

I think that pretty much says what I care about company loyalty.

like you said, that scenario is an oversimplification. If his software is written to take advantage of HT then yeah, get a P4 it'll be worth the extra money in the long run. However, for the vast majority of people, HT doesn't do a dang thing and they can get an athlon for less.

btw, as soon as Intel comes up with something better, I'll get that, but until then AMD has my money. most of us "fanboi's" aren't so much trying to defend AMD but rather show where Intel is lacking.

... what are you trying to say? If given the choice for a 64-bit proc vs a 32-bit one in essentially the same machine, wouldn't you pick the 64-bit one?

here is a PERFECT example of that: how many people have or are getting a 4750? Lots. Ok, compare that to how many people who are getting a 4790. well ...? Honestly, I don't think I've heard of a single person getting a 4790.

Also, it doesn't even matter when 64-bit is coming if at all, the mere possibilty of it is worth getting an athlon 64 over a P4, it's all about future proofing your machine. in ten years I will be able to use my machine in the mainstream 64-bit world (although probably not gaming), while your P4 machine will be obsolete and near useless.

idk what the heck you're talking about when you say ...

"It makes no sense to buy an AMD64 notebook now using 64-bit future as a reason, since the main component of a gaming notebook, the GPU, will be old news long before 64-bit is mainstream"

Well, it seems that P4 and AMD notebooks use the exact same GPU, so your point is moot, if not completely wrong. haven't you heard of 64-bit far cry and ut2k4? they're coming, and I will be able to play those with much better performance than 32-bit versions.

OGREtheBUFFOON i totally agree with you, I'm not an AMD fan boy and if Intel comes out with something better than AMD then id get it too, but for the moment Intel is pushing chips, which frankly are lacking vision.

thanks, xir. I know I'm right and I'm glad you think so too

While I understand your meaning, it's hardly relevant. People aren't buying the 4790 because the 8790 exists, and the 8790 is a much better laptop; RAID/2 hard drives, dual-channel memory, Intel chipset instead of SiS, better cooling (the 4780 was notorious for being hotter than the 8790), and a 256mb video card. The 4790 was released as a cheap alternative to the 8790, for those that still wanted a 17" screen and an Intel CPU, but couldn't afford the 8790.

I'm not comparing Intel and AMD here, I'm just making a point about 64-bit and notebooks. 64-bit is not a synonym for AMD.

By the time 64-bit is mainstream, we'll be playing UT2K5 or UT2K6. I'd personally hope that games will continue to push technology, and not have everything stay stagnant so that current AMD64 notebooks with MR 9700 will stay the high-end. Sure, you might be able to play Far Cry 64-bit (if it comes out) faster than a similarly aged P4 with a MR 9700, but you're still not future-proof because you're stuck with that same GPU.

My point, in case you missed it, is that no gaming notebook will be future-proof unless it's graphics are upgradeable, regardless if it has a 64-bit processor or a 512-bit processor.

Can 32 bit procs run 64 bit apps? Any 'reverse' emulation or so?

In general, sure. It's a no brainer to buy the AMD64. I agree totally. Let's go ahead on time. The 64 bit generation is now the default. Someone who had bought a 64 bit processor today instead of a 32 bit one would be pleased. For using the 'future' to be 64bit XP and 64 bit applications some years from now (and I'm sure you want your laptop to last the most time possible), the 64 bit proc. will do it with ease (not gaming), but the 32 bit will be struggling (I don't understand the basic basic basic of computers, but is it possible to a lower bit processor run a higher bit app? any reverse emulation or so? EDITED: I really don't know)...


EDIT: And Sharakkhal, I know we will be playing UT2005 or UT2006 that time, but I want my 'old' game UT2004 to be the same kind of my processor.... See: I still play Diablo 2 L.O.D. (I think it's just the best game ever - personal opinion, disconsider)... It's better to future-proof your CPU and not the GPU, than not future proof both. Don't think I don't see your point, but not every computer sold is for gaming purposes.

Thing is, though, the average person isn't going to buy an FX or an Opteron.

The place where they're going to get confused is in the mainstream and value processors.

People are going to see a big difference in performance between a 2800+ Sempron and a 2800+ A64 much like a 3.0 P4 and a 3.0 Celeron. Clockspeeds are roughly the same (or at least the PR is), but they don't perform nearly the same by a long shot.

Thing is, though, most of the people buying Itaniums don't care about it's 32 bit performance, they care about what it can do in 64 bit. The same holds true with those buying Sun, HP PA-RISC, IBM's POWER series, etc. They're buying them for specific tasks.

More generalized tasks and end users would benefit from the 32/64 bit interoperability.

Gotta love fanboys.

No, but there are other reasons to buy Intel. Platform has to be one of the biggest reasons I use Intel right now.

I have to find an AMD chipset that can offer me everything I want in a motherboard. Intel can do that, and it works very well.

It all depends on what you do with your proc, too. There are some things a P4 is better at and other things Athlons are. You buy what suits you best.

Looking at price only is a poor way to go about things.

Super

well the mainstream has always been retarded as far as technology is concerned, they don't know a motherboard from a hard drive. for us knowledgeable types, as long as we know what cache/clockspeed/fsb/etc it has then we know how it'll perform. the masses will just keep buying what Dell recommends lol.

Yes, it's SO dead end and such a bad idea that IBM uses it in its POWER series.

Give me a break.

Super

I think what he means is that HT will no longer be useful when dual core procs come out, it's still somewhat useful, but the technology is dated

While that's true, it's the mainstream that are Intel's and AMD's bread and butter.

We all do our research, but do you think the yahoos at Best Buy do? I laugh everytime I hear them trying to sell PCs.

At least with a model number, you can tell they're not in the same league.

That's certainly possible, but I'm not writing it off yet. HT may offer more benefits in multicore situations. We'll have to see.

Still, HT isn't all Intel cracks it up to be. It really only makes a significant difference in apps that are written for it, and most aren't.

That's primarily because windows drivers that are written in assembly code, and porting such low level code to 64-bit is not as easy as porting high level code like most applications. Still, SuSE managed to release a Linux distro for AMD64 only 2 months after the first AMD64 processors were launched last year so Microsoft is definately lagging behind the development here.