What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
46 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Hmm, well, amd was a good way in front recently considering the mistake INTEL made when they released their Dual-Core Architecture in a rush because AMD had theirs out.. Intel themselves admitted that this was a mistake...
- oyourmom, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5i still think amd is better!!!
- master_of_fm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"AMD did not create the 64 bit processor dumbass so don't make it sound that way!
64bit is actually more common than you think before any of this stink also any OS will support 64bit if compile to do so I have used a 64bit 6 years ago!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
well you are only slightly right, if I remember correctly AMD based their 64bit extensions on the DEC Alpha processors, but they are they ones that came up with the x86-64 architecture, which Intel later licensed. Itaniums which are 64bit have been around since before the Athlon64, but they are not x86 compatible. There have been 64bit processors for a long time now, but AMD was the first x86 processor that supported 64bit extensions. it is really too bad that there are too many "kids" on digg that just don't know there computer history - DewayneSmith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2AMD has provided better power then Intel (for me that is), but the Intel Pentium M's are decent enough to keep up with mildly heavy work. (I have one in my laptop)
- 7of7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The whole NetBurst thing has been a drag on Intel's quality, but with the Pentium M and their next generation architectures, all you AMD fanboys will need to come up with better reasons to hate Intel.
- pseudojd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1can't wait till either amd or intel come out with some 6 or 8 core stuff with jumbo L2s
- deepsub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"
Having the market lead, and having better gaming machines doesn't mean they make better chips. Intel owns the mobile market, and they also have the majority of the science fields that aren't using Macs. Wake up, Intel does make some of the best chips on the planet. The whole 1337 gamerz crowd doesn't mean anything. Intel still has the most advanced plants, and various other related to chips products."
Exactly... Intel is sitting on the most talent and intellectual property of any chip company, yet they're falling all over themselves trying to save face with respect to AMD. It's almost.... sad. - oyourmom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i have a AMD 64 3500+ San Diego and it runs fast as hell, i can run anything on ultra mode with just a Ati X700 Pro and that processor. its outrageous, only 400 bucks total, thats including case and ram and dvd-rw and 120gb hard drive
- deepsub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I wonder how much error correction circuitry they've got in the cache and logic... The soft error rate at 65nm must be of concern as much as the jump (not drop) in leakeage current (and power) going to 90 nm was for Prescott. I'll bet these processors will be unusable in a plane anything over 10,000 feet, but then again, we probably won't see these in laptops so that nit is moot.
http://www.google.com/search?q=65%20nm%20soft%20error%20rate
65 nm may be as small as SRAM can get within the same die as a power hungry Netburst CPU. This is probably the last Netburst core.
It was very smart for them to go dual die, as they'll be able to make parts that have a flaky processor into Celerons. :D
At 45 nanometers, I believe more quantum effects will kick in, and interconnect/insulator layers will be maxed out, too. 65 nm should be smooth sailing for the industry, but 45nm is going to be a beeatch... - skylog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"!!!skylog !!
AMD did not create the 64 bit processor dumbass so don't make it sound that way!
64bit is actually more common than you think before any of this stink also any OS will support 64bit if compile to do so I have used a 64bit 6 years ago!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
posted by mrfx (5)
not certain what you are directing towards me. dumbass? i did not say that AMD created the 64 bit processor. i quoted and agreed with a previous poster who was disagreeing with another poster who stated that intel created everything 64. i, nor he, stated AMD created the 64 bit processor. i did agree with him in that EMT64 is based on the x86 instruction set created by AMD. show me where i am a dumbass. - skylog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"What are you talking about 64bit technology has been around a lot longer then when intel release it. If your talking only about x86-64 then your still wrong as AMD created that extension and Intel is using AMD's extension and calling it EM64T. The strained-silicon method is being used by AMD, that is one of the reasons that the AMD64's are running with lower power requirements."
posted by snuggles (0)
beat me to it. also, if AMD is "sitting back" then why is that they have had the technological lead for the past 3 years? to further add, how is that intel investment doing? i have an average cost of 7.36 on my AMD shares. it closed at 31.20 today.
here is a chart
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=AMD&t=2y&l=off&z=l&q=l&c=intc - capn_caveman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Good thing they waited until after Christmas because I'm betting that thing would have set fire to every Christmas tree it was under.
- ichthus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What's new? Intel still has better process technology, and AMD still has a better design.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Intel is so far behind right know come on !
- t35t0r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1the athlon64 4800+ x2 crushes this new CPU in many benchmarks (and it uses less power). If this is the best intel has to offer from 65nm I wonder what AMD can do with that technology?
- subscribtion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Opteron>* for me atleast.
- rewritable, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0AMD K6-2 all the way.
- TheDarkTipper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Dupe.
There was a story already about the new 955 today. - sergio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Too late. Already bought an X2 4400+.
- Arcotik, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Ignorance at its best... Intel's R&D department is worth more alone than AMD in its entirety..."
You realize though that AMD processors still beat out Intel, right? To me, there is a problem with having so much money spent on advertising - if what your selling doesn't even match the hype. - Dabellah, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"I got a amd processor and i am pleased. Untill Intel stops putting money into advertizing and more money into designing a better chip then im not switching back."
Ignorance at its best... Intel's R&D department is worth more alone than AMD in its entirety... - x2dx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I got a amd processor and i am pleased. Untill Intel stops putting money into advertizing and more money into designing a better chip then im not switching back.
- j.carcinogen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0n64 then, point is it doesnt mean *****.
- master_of_fm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0atari jaguar had two 32bit processors and was not 64bit,
- iwasatoad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Intel all the way but for you AMD fan's ill help let you know why The new Intel processor is better and why the current Pentium D is not for you The current Pentium D is not Designed for high end gaming i mean just look at the specs and realize it's met for application's not games i mean example video editing while playing music but oops need to check e-mail, stock market and all the other good stuff so intel Pentium D is better for businesses but not for gaming. AMD on the other hand is for gaming note 64KB L1 for both cores but slower GHz's so it depends on what your using it for so thus for you cannot really compare the two because one is for puar gaming and the other is for Apps.
To be nice all start with the specs on AMD x2 4800+
2.4GHz
L1 64KB+64KB
L2 2 x 1MB
HT supported
1.35-1.4V (volts)
price $787 from New Egg
Now specs from Intel Pentium D EE
3.2GHz
L1 12KB+16KB
L2 2 x 1MB
HT supported
1.25-1.388
Price $1,040
So from that stand point the Intel processor is .8GHz faster and uses less power than AMD
hands down so stop bickering about that you nincompoops. and you can clearly see that intel has .8GHz more than AMD which is good for both gaming and Apps But AMD has higher L1 for both core than Intel so AMD takes a huge lead for gaming their so Once again depends on what you are using it for
Now for the New 65nm Processor the specs all you AMD fan's can drual over for a while until AMD comes out with it about 6months to 1 year after Intel as usual Now I'm going to point something out but i don't want to read bickering about it on here because it's the truth.
AMD will come out with a better processor 6 months to 1 year or so after Intel so no fuss you intel fan's but it's due to them waiting and relying on lintel's research to make their Owen processor no fuss AMD guy's ( and Ladies). But AMD will have the advantage of researching something cheaper and in their price range that will make this 65nm processor better and cheaper because Thea wont have a huge research bill to pay for just what ever Thea add to it which will make it better other wise Thea wouldn't release it or make news about it.
now the Intel Pentium D 955 65nm
3.46GHz
L1 12KB+16KB
L2 2 x 2MB
1.20-1.3 I think not for sure
and you can run all the bench read all the bench marks you want but reamber Thea half to be CPU bench marks not system Since the x2 and 955 run on different sockets they cant use The same board which i have found but changing my board but keeping same internals will change the score of system bench marks but run one just for CPU not entire system and the 3D Mark05 CPU is 2,000 more than what the current 4800x2 so for now i guess lintel's new processor is better we will just wait for it to go on sale for the public and see if AMD comes out with one better by then or not So that should i think bring the bickering to a smaller note or just make more AMD fans stay up for hours saying I'm Ring or thinking of something bad to say about this new 65nm tech (Also one foot note Intel has a better processor than the 955 all ready made but no info is released on it and I'm afraid that's all i can largely say) so enjoy your wish full thinking of when UN young ones 18- 25 hit 50 and a processor will be the size of eraser on a pencil and reamber all this bickering about speeds around 3.8GHz when the present one will be in the 50GHz range and a 3.8GHz will be our sound processor Lil and a 20GHz processor will be our video card processor and so on. And then still then we will still bang our head's on the wall because there will be arguments about who is better ( well Guess what!!!!!!!!!!!!!) (linking park) In The End It Do sent Matter who thinks who's is better buy all - FRAGaLOT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0>> I'd rather invest in a company that actually researches and develops their own products,
AMD does do that.
>> Intel was first to develop 64 bit,
Intel is actually using AMD's 64 bit instruction set for their 64bit CPU lines. and they do this to stay compatible and competitive, not because they are the best.
>> Intel is the one developing new strained-silicon methods,
I'm not sure about this but I thought it was a diff rent chip maker that thought of this idea. But regardless it's not something intel has the rights to use exclusively.
>> and they are the one driving the market. So what if AMD has better benchmarks.
>> The difference isn't enough for most people to notice anyway.
Hard to drive markets when AMD's units are much cheaper. Go a head and use your over heating, slower, and more expensive CPUs. I'll use my Athlon 64, thanks. - colelt1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Why is Intel even wasting money on netburst when they know they are switching to the M, if they put all their effort into the M design, or even (gasp) something new, because the M is derived from the P3, which came from a P2, which came from a P-Pro. I buy whatever is the best at the time, right now, its AMD. The reason Intel is failing right now is they bet on the Prescott, saying it would hit 8ghz in a year, and it was supposed to, if CPUs didn't produce heat, when they hit a thermal wall at 3.8, they knew they had a problem.
Ill stick with my X2 for now. - skylog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0that should read x86-64
- j.carcinogen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0a playstation 2 has a 128 bit processor, the atari jaguar had a 64 bit processor man.
- sporkman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1omg I'm so angry I need to use 500 exclamation marks to make my point !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0The size of the chip has no virtue if they cannot control its power or heat! So i say again the slower clock with the larger bit rate was the more effective route and will be the better achiever.
!!!skylog !!!
AMD did not create the 64 bit processor dumbass so don't make it sound that way!
64bit is actually more common than you think before any of this stink also any OS will support 64bit if compile to do so I have used a 64bit 6 years ago!!!!!!!!!!!!! - Fantt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Rock, paper, scissors all the way baby!
- acontorer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0t35t0r said "If this is the best intel has to offer from 65nm I wonder what AMD can do with that technology?"
Actually, the article makes it quite clear that this is the FIRST 65nm CPU from Intel, and that they intentionally moved the MOST CONSERVATIVE chip to 65nm first. So we can expect substantial improvement pretty rapidly, as soon as Intel gets comfortable with how well the factory is producing these (primarily, getting a low rate of defects and a high number of units produced per hour). - Sandkat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0[Random old ass chip/computer] all the way baby!
- CanuckPlumber, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Commodore 64 all the way!!!
- coachace, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0MOS Technology 6502 CPU, baby!!
- NidStyles, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0**the athlon64 4800+ x2 crushes this new CPU in many benchmarks (and it uses less power). If this is the best intel has to offer from 65nm I wonder what AMD can do with that technology?**
It's not the best, and everyone that actually knows something about chips knows that the Netburst is dead. We all know that the next releases of Intel's chips will rock, and most likely blow AMD's current line up away.
**if AMD is "sitting back" then why is that they have had the technological lead for the past 3 years?**
Having the market lead, and having better gaming machines doesn't mean they make better chips. Intel owns the mobile market, and they also have the majority of the science fields that aren't using Macs. Wake up, Intel does make some of the best chips on the planet. The whole 1337 gamerz crowd doesn't mean anything. Intel still has the most advanced plants, and various other related to chips products. - digghotdog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0VIA C7 forever
- klauern, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0true dat.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I hope they worked a bit more on their architecture this time...
Kiltak
[Geeks Are Sexy] Tech. News
http://geeksaresexy.blogspot.com - AdamCo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0"AMD K6-2 all the way."
I have a compaq presario 5440 sitting over there on the floor with one of those in it, doh. haha. - isny, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Vacuum tubes all the way!
- OutrightLie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I'd rather invest in a company that actually researches and develops their own products, than invest in a company that sits back and lets other people do the hard work. Intel was first to develop 64 bit, Intel is the one developing new strained-silicon methods, and they are the one driving the market. So what if AMD has better benchmarks. The difference isn't enough for most people to notice anyway.
- moiety, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1"i still think amd is better!!!"
Please, try not to overwhelm us with your reasoning there. Your logic is flawless. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Cyrix forever
- HackWithRamzi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Guys... the NetBurst architecture is going bye-bye. Just wait for the new offerings based on the Pentium M (Jew power baby!)
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is