i'm suffering
lol, i haven't been blogging for a very long time...you see, i've jus sold my com and i'm currently computer-less. (i'm blogging on my father's com now) its been hard for me to stay away from the computer for even for 12 hrs, let alone 1 day.....oh! the PAIN!!! :D
So what have i been up to? well, i've been looking reviews on conputers, deciding what to get, going for a 'upper sec vocab' course that my mum signed me up for (w/o my consent), studying, going out wif friends, entertaining my mum's parents from malaysia (kota baru to be exact), lazing around etc etc.
so i'm thinking abt getting these parts for my com:
-sapphire crossfire innovation mobo(yeah a CROSSFIRE)
-tastefully complimented with an AMD Venice 3200+
-graphics card will be an X800 (dunno what brand or version to get yet)
the rest of the computer will be the same as my previous one....
oh and did you know AMD challenged Intel to a duel core duel? yup that right!
Here are the details:
Date : 6th December 2005
Time : 1.30PM
Venue : Chihuly Room, The Ritz-Charlton, Millenia Singapore
Website: www.amd.com/duel
however, views vary on this so called 'duel':
QUOTES:
Orginally Posted by SkyCheong:
[i believe intel will win............ ONLY in terms of clock speed......]
Orginally Posted by tUx:
[I would say that Intel simply has no answer to the faster AMD Athlon X2 processors. :D
If you were to take the 840 and pit it against the X2 3800+, there are still a minority of tests that the 840 will win, but the majority still going to the X2 3800+. I say pit 840 against the X2 3800+ because both have core speeds that are supposedly 'equivalent' (3.2GHz vs 3200+ single). However, the 840 is quite a bit more expensive than the X2 3800+.
AMD Athlon X2 5000+ for anyone soon? ]
Orginally Posted by <>:
[Pardon me,
I was taking a break when I saw this thread... the news posted in the papers a while ago seemed to confirm that AMD is really despo.
Although I like AMD's recent products, I feel that this exercise is both meaningless and childish.I'll only need to put forth 2 reasons:
1. Performance crowns are VERY transient - Who T** F*** cares about going through so much trouble to prove a point when this "point" is only going to last as long as the current generation of products? Don't tell me that next year at this time, the products are still going to be the same?
2. There have already been tests and benches run to simulate performance statistics for both companies' products... I don't think that this test will do much more to enhance the knowledge available to customers.
Even then, issues such as price, performance and power consumption are all relative to i
individual usage habits, applications etc. Coupled with the fact that the usefulness of these benchmarks and test is rather limited and of very short term validity - the wisdom of AMD's approach becomes rather questionable. I may go to see this circus, but it seems to me that this is just a huge PR event and of no real use to consumers.
If anything, this contest should be put on in an "open" format - i.e. They should consider EVERYTHING - not just processors available in volume since these kind of margins are rather hard to predict as it is - what's "not available in volume" could well become "available in volume" a few weeks down the road. They should thus compete based on what they are coming up with rather than limiting the scope of the study.
My guess is that AMD is aware that currently they hold the performance edge... but that Intel might just be catching up faster than they would like - worse still, they might already know that Intel's upcoming products hold a significant edge. I'm actually banking on the latter point because I believe that Intel holds the edge due to their upcoming Yonah - whose microarchitecture is derived from low-power "Banias" Pentium Ms. AMD does not seem to have such power-optimized processors coming soon and this optimization could be a key factor as well.
What we have these days are actually very primitive multi-core processors - a multitude of which are merely homogeneous designs - i.e. the two cores are the same. In future, we will find that that heterogeneous core designs will be much more efficient as these "mixed"-core designs should allow for speciallized cores to handle specific tasks.
In this aspect, issues such as R&D advancement and the resources available to the company will have great importance. Intel has an undeniable lead when it comes to size and the amount of resources they can dedicate to this enterprise - make no doubt about it.
Intel's size, in turn, has been a chief reason why they have been able to deliver products in the kind of quantities and prices that most competitors have struggled to match. Certainly, one need only look at the debut of dual-core processors to see evidence of this - Intel's production capabilities are staggering - it's just a matter of them getting it right.
Note: I'm not trying to defend Intel or any company - frankly, they can take care of themselves, what I am saying is that it's not sensible for such tests or demonstrations to form the basis of opinion. Nor is it sensible to place one's loyalties in any company. As the consumer - you have a duty to no one else but yourself. Whatever can be proven at this or any other demo is of very little value - the ridiculous thing is that both the companies and some consumers will hail the victory of either side as if it is something lasting and permanent... it's important to realise that this is not and that the value of a company and it's products are based on a lot more than some benchmarks and tests done in a hotel conference room. In fact, I'm prepared to jump over to Intel at anytime if they come up with something that meets my needs - likewise, I'll continue to use AMD solutions if they continue to meet my needs as well.
<>
- message to them: Stop the fluff and come up with the stuff - we don't need more PR nonsense.]
lol, long messages?
ppl are also guessing that AMD will pull out its new processor FX dual-core with pacifica and Intel pulls out yonah. lol.
i'm feeling sorry that i can't be there - will be having church camp then...sigh...
...so i hope to post soon! for now, i'm signing out!
So what have i been up to? well, i've been looking reviews on conputers, deciding what to get, going for a 'upper sec vocab' course that my mum signed me up for (w/o my consent), studying, going out wif friends, entertaining my mum's parents from malaysia (kota baru to be exact), lazing around etc etc.
so i'm thinking abt getting these parts for my com:
-sapphire crossfire innovation mobo(yeah a CROSSFIRE)
-tastefully complimented with an AMD Venice 3200+
-graphics card will be an X800 (dunno what brand or version to get yet)
the rest of the computer will be the same as my previous one....
oh and did you know AMD challenged Intel to a duel core duel? yup that right!
Here are the details:
Date : 6th December 2005
Time : 1.30PM
Venue : Chihuly Room, The Ritz-Charlton, Millenia Singapore
Website: www.amd.com/duel
however, views vary on this so called 'duel':
QUOTES:
Orginally Posted by SkyCheong:
[i believe intel will win............ ONLY in terms of clock speed......]
Orginally Posted by tUx:
[I would say that Intel simply has no answer to the faster AMD Athlon X2 processors. :D
If you were to take the 840 and pit it against the X2 3800+, there are still a minority of tests that the 840 will win, but the majority still going to the X2 3800+. I say pit 840 against the X2 3800+ because both have core speeds that are supposedly 'equivalent' (3.2GHz vs 3200+ single). However, the 840 is quite a bit more expensive than the X2 3800+.
AMD Athlon X2 5000+ for anyone soon? ]
Orginally Posted by <
[Pardon me,
I was taking a break when I saw this thread... the news posted in the papers a while ago seemed to confirm that AMD is really despo.
Although I like AMD's recent products, I feel that this exercise is both meaningless and childish.I'll only need to put forth 2 reasons:
1. Performance crowns are VERY transient - Who T** F*** cares about going through so much trouble to prove a point when this "point" is only going to last as long as the current generation of products? Don't tell me that next year at this time, the products are still going to be the same?
2. There have already been tests and benches run to simulate performance statistics for both companies' products... I don't think that this test will do much more to enhance the knowledge available to customers.
Even then, issues such as price, performance and power consumption are all relative to i
individual usage habits, applications etc. Coupled with the fact that the usefulness of these benchmarks and test is rather limited and of very short term validity - the wisdom of AMD's approach becomes rather questionable. I may go to see this circus, but it seems to me that this is just a huge PR event and of no real use to consumers.
If anything, this contest should be put on in an "open" format - i.e. They should consider EVERYTHING - not just processors available in volume since these kind of margins are rather hard to predict as it is - what's "not available in volume" could well become "available in volume" a few weeks down the road. They should thus compete based on what they are coming up with rather than limiting the scope of the study.
My guess is that AMD is aware that currently they hold the performance edge... but that Intel might just be catching up faster than they would like - worse still, they might already know that Intel's upcoming products hold a significant edge. I'm actually banking on the latter point because I believe that Intel holds the edge due to their upcoming Yonah - whose microarchitecture is derived from low-power "Banias" Pentium Ms. AMD does not seem to have such power-optimized processors coming soon and this optimization could be a key factor as well.
What we have these days are actually very primitive multi-core processors - a multitude of which are merely homogeneous designs - i.e. the two cores are the same. In future, we will find that that heterogeneous core designs will be much more efficient as these "mixed"-core designs should allow for speciallized cores to handle specific tasks.
In this aspect, issues such as R&D advancement and the resources available to the company will have great importance. Intel has an undeniable lead when it comes to size and the amount of resources they can dedicate to this enterprise - make no doubt about it.
Intel's size, in turn, has been a chief reason why they have been able to deliver products in the kind of quantities and prices that most competitors have struggled to match. Certainly, one need only look at the debut of dual-core processors to see evidence of this - Intel's production capabilities are staggering - it's just a matter of them getting it right.
Note: I'm not trying to defend Intel or any company - frankly, they can take care of themselves, what I am saying is that it's not sensible for such tests or demonstrations to form the basis of opinion. Nor is it sensible to place one's loyalties in any company. As the consumer - you have a duty to no one else but yourself. Whatever can be proven at this or any other demo is of very little value - the ridiculous thing is that both the companies and some consumers will hail the victory of either side as if it is something lasting and permanent... it's important to realise that this is not and that the value of a company and it's products are based on a lot more than some benchmarks and tests done in a hotel conference room. In fact, I'm prepared to jump over to Intel at anytime if they come up with something that meets my needs - likewise, I'll continue to use AMD solutions if they continue to meet my needs as well.
<
- message to them: Stop the fluff and come up with the stuff - we don't need more PR nonsense.]
lol, long messages?
ppl are also guessing that AMD will pull out its new processor FX dual-core with pacifica and Intel pulls out yonah. lol.
i'm feeling sorry that i can't be there - will be having church camp then...sigh...
...so i hope to post soon! for now, i'm signing out!
posted by sk at 11:03 pm
0 comments
