With the recent release of the 3000+ and 3200+ chips AMD was supposed pull away from intel. Well accourding to reviews they have. Just in the wrong direction. The 3000 and 3200 both have been shown to lag behind the 3.06, 3.0 and in some cases even the 2.8 Proccessors from intel. This is a major propblem when AMD actually costs more than an equivilent intel now.
Where do you see AMD going now. They are really building up thier 64bit Proc, however when you look at it this won't offer much improvement for a while since there is very little software in the PC market that is written to take advantage of it.
I personally think AMD needs to take a good hard look at where they are going and make a few course corrections. As much as I have always prefered intel, I really want AMD to do well. You need that competition there to keep new and better things coming out.
However, theres people out there that actually believe it does.
I hear the 3000 runs at 2.5Ghz.
quote:
Mortious had this to say about Cuba:
I see AMD remaining as the rugged underdog, retaining their huge popularity in the hardware enthusiast market.
YOu see them staying popular with enthusiest if they can not keep up?
Even you have mentioned that they are falling behind. And you are without question an AMD fanboy 
quote:
Skaw attempted to be funny by writing:
The AMD Athlon XP numbers have nothing to do with their speed.However, theres people out there that actually believe it does.
I hear the 3000 runs at 2.5Ghz.
That isn't the point skaw.
The point is that a 450 dollar Athlon XP3200+ will run slower than a 350 dollar Intel P4 3.0Ghz.
THG, Cnet, and pretty much every other reviewer has agreed on this.
And I think the 3200+ runs ar 2.2Ghz and the 3000+ runs at 2.15
quote:
How.... Azizza.... uughhhhhh:
That isn't the point skaw.
The point is that a 450 dollar Athlon XP3200+ will run slower than a 350 dollar Intel P4 3.0Ghz.
THG, Cnet, and pretty much every other reviewer has agreed on this.And I think the 3200+ runs ar 2.2Ghz and the 3000+ runs at 2.15
as much as I love AMD, it's because I'm cheap.
If you're buying a top-end rig, you'll be MUCH better served with an intel processor. At the high end, the intels are much better performers. However, if you look at the mid level and budget chips, then AMD becomes the favourite, espescialy if you're willing to overclock.
Anything up to around 2.4 (or 2400+) GHz is AMD turf, and above that, intel shines. (with the exception of the 2500+ barton)
So the mediocre performance of the 3000 and 3200 chips is not at all surprising to me.
No, Really. Bite me.
quote:
Azizza had this to say about dark elf butts:
No This isn't a flame or Fanboy thread.
Every time you open a thread with that, it always turns out to be a flame or fanboi thread
The Athlon XP architecture is simply getting old. Intel had this exact same lull in performance when the P4 came out. The Athlon 64's pre-release tests are already have it blowing an equivalent P4 out of the water when running a 64 bit OS, and that's precisely what AMD is waiting for to release the Athlon 64 - the release of the new windows revision in September. [ 05-15-2003: Message edited by: Bill ]
quote:
From the book of Bill, chapter 3, verse 16:
that's precisely what AMD is waiting for to release the Athlon 64 - the release of the new windows revision in September.
Would this be a revision to XP? Because Longhorn isn't due out until 2005, last I heard.
quote:
Mortious had this to say about Pirotess:
Would this be a revision to XP? Because Longhorn isn't due out until 2005, last I heard.
Maybe I'm wrong.
I know the Athlon 64 is due out in september, and a couple news sites like ars technica said it was being delayed until the release of a 64 bit OS in september.
I know nothing about longhorn, and I don't know what 64 bit OS is being released in september.
But that is a guess.
Edit:
Ninok, Microsoft has said that Longhorn will be out in 2005. An alpha version means jack shit when you're comparing it with the release date.
At this rate, they'll have 8 alpha milestones, and beta will start around Late 2003-Early 2004. [ 05-15-2003: Message edited by: Tatsukaze ]
and the hammer series of processors appear to be extremely efficient on a per-clock basis, shashing a regular AthlonXP at the same clock speed in both 32 and 64 bit tasks. So that way a clawhammer clocked at 2.0GHz should be competitive with a P4c at 3.0, which is nice.
No, Really. Bite me.
quote:
Peter Model 2000 was programmed to say:
Dunno if you really can compare the too...From what I Know, AMD biggest consumer is the home market, As far as I know they don't really make anything out side of a home user's chip.
Sledgehammer coming out very soon is basically an industrial Athlon 64. Blows the Itanium out of the water, and the Itanium is dramatically more expensive.
quote:
A sleep deprived Tatsukaze stammered:
Windows XP 64-bit Edition.
I think this is already finished, just not released yet.
Man, I said it was a guess, why the h8.
quote:
Peter had this to say about pies:
Dunno if you really can compare the too...From what I Know, AMD biggest consumer is the home market, As far as I know they don't really make anything out side of a home user's chip. Were as it seems Intel Makes chips for business and industry as their main consumer and home users take more of a back seat, which to me seems better cause advances made higher up eventually trickle down to the home users company. Its like trying to compare Craftsman to John Deere or Dodge to Mack.
look at the Opteron line of chips from AMD as well as the Athlon MP. No, AMD does not have any kind of real market share in the workstation/server market, but what little they do have they are actively trying to expand.
Intel has similar product lines, like the Xenon, which is aimed at servers/workstations, and the itanium(sp) and itanium2 which are real beasts that nobody would ever drop in a home machine. Yes, the P4 was designed for business uses, and still makes most of it's sales in the business market, but home systems are still a large part of intel's chip sales.
No, Really. Bite me.
quote:
Bill had this to say about (_|_):
Sledgehammer coming out very soon is basically an industrial Athlon 64. Blows the Itanium out of the water, and the Itanium is dramatically more expensive.
Isn't Sledgehammer already out as the Opteron?
http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproduct.asp?DEPA=&submit=Go&description=opteron
Plus the consumer processor (Athlon 64) is coming out in September (angst), which (I THINK) is based on Clawhammer.
quote:
This one time, at Kegwen camp:
aaaaaaaaaaaand by that time Intel will have something better.
64-bit? No. The Itanic gets owned every time.
But there's always this little thing called Prescott, and the NetBurst architecture ain't leaving for a while (it's supposed to scale to 10 GHz).
So, AMD kinda screwed themselves over when they delayyyyyed the Hammers.
quote:
Tatsukaze Model 2000 was programmed to say:
64-bit? No. The Itanic gets owned every time.But there's always this little thing called Prescott, and the NetBurst architecture ain't leaving for a while (it's supposed to scale to 10 GHz).
So, AMD kinda screwed themselves over when they delayyyyyed the Hammers.
Yeah. I gave up keeping up with this crap.
