Looks like AMD was trumped once again.
quote:No kidding?
I alone love Reynar. I alone tempt Reynar:
I like cookies.
Me too.
Amazing.
I for one, am applaued!
/me is a dumb ass.
<dances and frolics about with many yummy cookies>
And after all these years, AMD has still yet to make a processor not the size of something that could be used in Masonry? [ 09-22-2003: Message edited by: Skaw ]
quote:
Oh my Katrinity:
This must be turned into a Cookie Loving thread! ^.^<dances and frolics about with many yummy cookies>
I knew it all along. Evil little thing, aren't you? Spreading your cookies in hope that one day all the world will be too fat to resist your inevitable rise to power. [ 09-22-2003: Message edited by: Black ]
quote:
Let us return now in the sharp one of the subject for much: Plays. For some time, the plays almost became the greediest applications in power CPU Depend on the subsystem report like graphics board and CPU, the plays recent are perfect benchmarks. Concerning Athlon 64, one knows that the first play optimized x86-64 will be most probably a variation of Unreal Tournament. Certain beta were already visible end 2002 besides. If we could not test this version, we will fold back ourselves on the version 32 bits which offers already interesting results. Let us re-examine our configurations of tests:
Oh wait, no one programs apps in 64-bit right now..
You know the world is getting impatient when they worry about shaving off 1-2 seconds of load time.
quote:
Check out the big brain on Reynar!
Ono, A 64-bit CPU sucks!Oh wait, no one programs apps in 64-bit right now..
You know the world is getting impatient when they worry about shaving off 1-2 seconds of load time.
Uh, the point of the Athlon 64 was to make the jump to 64-bit WHILE ALSO adopting a new chipset. They really needed to do the latter, and they decided to just do both at the same time. 
quote:
Peanut butter ass Shaq Absolut Blindy booooze lime pole over bench lick:
No way, you mean to tell me the product they pushed back umpteen times, had production issues on, and are releasing 2 years later against products three times more advanced is NOT the revolutionary product all the fan boui's claimed it would be?
I like how you immediately accepted Naimah's claims without having to see any evidence, and then called everyone else a fanboi.
I, for one, am waiting for a better translated, less ambiguous review before I pass judgement.
quote:
When Reynar says stuff like this, it proves there isn't a god:
Ono, A 64-bit CPU sucks!Oh wait, no one programs apps in 64-bit right now..
You know the world is getting impatient when they worry about shaving off 1-2 seconds of load time.
The idea was to create a 64 bit cpu that would provide equal or faster 32 bit operation to the leading 32 bit intel product.
The product is a half assed 32 bit and a half assed 64 bit cpu which is completely out of date. Intel has been producing 64 bit cpus for 'neigh 2 years now, and their rev3 product will, trust me, blow away this peice of crap.
quote:
Nobody really understood why Naimah wrote:
As am I. Those are disapointing initial numbers however. Personally I am looking forward to THG and HOCP before I pass final judgement. Though if those numbers hold up then I am going to Intel.
They're in metric... so you know, like, they'll be higher in english units 
quote:
Black was listening to Cher while typing:I knew it all along. Evil little thing, aren't you? Spreading your cookies in hope that one day all the world will be too fat to resist your inevitable rise to power.
Ono! You've discovered my devious plan! <hires hitmen to take Black out!>
quote:
Absolut Blindying:
The idea was to create a 64 bit cpu that would provide equal or faster 32 bit operation to the leading 32 bit intel product.The product is a half assed 32 bit and a half assed 64 bit cpu which is completely out of date. Intel has been producing 64 bit cpus for 'neigh 2 years now, and their rev3 product will, trust me, blow away this peice of crap.
And you just know this because intel is so great omg they will so totally just kill AMD omg, I don't even need a rational basis for my arguments because Intel is just so TOTALLY SWEET.
*cough* FANBOI *cough*
quote:
It's not yet possible to judge the performance capability of the Athlon 64 in pure 64-bit operation, since the alpha version of "Windows XP 64" we used and the dearth of available programs don't allow a clear evaluation. And the 64-bit Linux isn't really practical for daily desktop tasks.
And a bit of opinion I just happen to agree with
quote:
But with the P4 Extreme Intel managed to considerably spoil AMD's launch. Now the latest Intel CPU wins in most of the benchmark tests. So was it a fair move for Intel to make such cosmetic changes prior to the actual launch of the Athlon 64? We see it as the infantile reaction of a monopolist who's naturally inclined to act like a general at a sand table exercise.
[ 09-23-2003: Message edited by: Maradon! ]
I will stick with Intel and IBM chips thank you very much.
quote:
Over the mountain, in between the ups and downs, I ran into Azizza who doth quote:
Yeah God forbid that Intel trumps thier competition.
I guess you would prefer that they just stop all advancement and marketing of their current products. Just let AMD take all the market share. After all it is the "fair" thing to do...I will stick with Intel and IBM chips thank you very much.
Thank you for misinterpreting me and contributing nothing.
From the THG review I read it looks like that for an extra $50 you gain a hair of performance and lose 64 bit compatibility.
Maybe I'm reading it wrong though [ 09-23-2003: Message edited by: Maradon! ]
feel free to interpret it any way you like
quote:
This insanity brought to you by Absolut Blindy:
The product is a half assed 32 bit and a half assed 64 bit cpu which is completely out of date. Intel has been producing 64 bit cpus for 'neigh 2 years now, and their rev3 product will, trust me, blow away this peice of crap.
Are you honestly surprised though? It was pretty obvious that trying to design a new 64bit CPU would only give average 32bit backwards performance.
It was silly of them to try to design a "jack of all trades" processor at this time. Either make a good 32bit, or make a good 64bit with minimal 32bit support.
And indeed Intel has been making 64bit CPUs, but is there any such need for 64 on the end user market? Not at all, and there won't be for years to come.
quote:
How.... Maradon!.... uughhhhhh:
Thank you for misinterpreting me and contributing nothing.From the THG review I read it looks like that for an extra $50 you gain a hair of performance and lose 64 bit compatibility.
Maybe I'm reading it wrong though
feel free to interpret it any way you like
I was refering to this:
quote:
But with the P4 Extreme Intel managed to considerably spoil AMD's launch. Now the latest Intel CPU wins in most of the benchmark tests. So was it a fair move for Intel to make such cosmetic changes prior to the actual launch of the Athlon 64? We see it as the infantile reaction of a monopolist who's naturally inclined to act like a general at a sand table exercise.
To me that just came off as fanboi whining. Intel has done nothing different than hundreds of other companies throught history. Marketing is a game of one-up-manship.
Intel saw a chance and they took it. Thier main competition was coming out with a new chip. All they did was beat AMD off the block. They delivered a chip that provides what people want. 64bit offers no advantage at this time in your consumer PC. And AMDs 64bit chip offers mediocure performance. If you want or need that power than go with a PowerPC 970 (G5) or an Intel chip. Both of them have solutions tailored to the needs of customers who actually use, or will soon use 64bit apps.
quote:
Azizzaing:
To me that just came off as fanboi whining.
It was also a footnote, you completely ignored the thrust of my argument. Which, to me, comes off as fanboi whining.
quote:
Maradon! needed a klingon dictionary to type:
And you just know this because intel is so great omg they will so totally just kill AMD omg, I don't even need a rational basis for my arguments because Intel is just so TOTALLY SWEET.*cough* FANBOI *cough*
If you provide rational basis for your argument, whatever that is, I'll do the same.
quote:
x--Absolut BlindyO-('-'Q) :
If you provide rational basis for your argument, whatever that is, I'll do the same.
I already have:
quote:
It's not yet possible to judge the performance capability of the Athlon 64 in pure 64-bit operation, since the alpha version of "Windows XP 64" we used and the dearth of available programs don't allow a clear evaluation. And the 64-bit Linux isn't really practical for daily desktop tasks.
I've only argued to reserve your judgement until you know more than jack shit.
It's generally wise to wait until you know about something to talk about it.
quote:
We all got dumber when Maradon! said:
I've only argued to reserve your judgement until you know more than jack shit.It's generally wise to wait until you know about something to talk about it.
64 bit linux might not be practical for daily use, but just becuase the Athlon64 sucks at it compared to the Itanium2, doesn't mean that he should not show tests in it. But since he creatively worded that statement to avoid the subject, I can only assume Tom is back to his old fraudgulent self.
My argument: we have 2 os's designed for 64 bit chips. The Athlon 64 is slower than the 64 bit Intel chip at both. In 32 bit mode, it is slower than the 32 bit intel product. So it fails at both sides.
Sure, you can make any system run better with tweaked software, and I'm sure that when windows xp 64 bit is finalized and the linux code monkeys optimize for the athlon64, it will run descently... But, you know, if I remember correctly, one of the things AMD has always railed Intel about was their use of Intel specific compilers to achieve their performance leads. And here they are doing the exact same thing.
How ironic. [ 09-23-2003: Message edited by: Absolut Blindy ]
quote:
Peanut butter ass Shaq Absolut Blindy booooze lime pole over bench lick:
64 bit linux might not be practical for daily use, but just becuase the Athlon64 sucks at it compared to the Itanium2, doesn't mean that he should not show tests in it.
It sorta does, considering the Itanium 2 runs around $3000 and the Athlon 64 FX is about $400.
Making your comparison completely retarded.
Intel currently has no competing product for the home 64bit market. [ 09-23-2003: Message edited by: Maradon! ]
quote:
How.... Maradon!.... uughhhhhh:
It sorta does, considering the Itanium 2 runs around $3000 and the Athlon 64 FX is about $400.Making your comparison completely retarded.
Intel currently has no competing product for the home 64bit market.
I agree, but it's more like $8000
http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/ITANIUM2_1GHZ_CPU_FOR_SVR_RX5670/4014-3086_16-20720125.html?tag=box
quote:
Maradon! must of had a painful childhood to type:
It sorta does, considering the Itanium 2 runs around $3000 and the Athlon 64 FX is about $400.Making your comparison completely retarded.
Intel currently has no competing product for the home 64bit market.
what home 64 bit market?
quote:
Peanut butter ass Shaq Absolut Blindy booooze lime pole over bench lick:
what home 64 bit market?
Grasp at straws much?
The one that will be generated by the superior performance of 64 bit architecture, and catalyzed by the availability of backward compatible 64/32 bit processors.
Processors like the Athlon 64.
A decade ago you could have just as well been saying "What home 32 bit market?" [ 09-23-2003: Message edited by: Maradon! ]
quote:
ACES! Another post by Absolut Blindy:
My argument: we have 2 os's designed for 64 bit chips. The Athlon 64 is slower than the 64 bit Intel chip at both. In 32 bit mode, it is slower than the 32 bit intel product. So it fails at both sides.
Windows XP 64-bit edition ALPHA
quote:
Kegwen was probibly wasted when they said:
Windows XP 64-bit edition ALPHA
the one that has been out since 2001?
the one we are running on a few servers at work under the MSDN release?
Yes, I know it well.
There is a reason they haven't developed a customer version in the 2 years it has been out. There is no demand.
And for a few years, there won't be. This is not the type of change where you can just flip a switch. By the time the market is ready for it, no one would even think about running the code on a processor as antiquated as the Athlon 64.
quote:
x--NaimahO-('-'Q) :
So your saying that no one should get 64 bit processors because there is nothing for it, but no one should make 64 bit programs because there are no processors. I see a flaw in your logic.
What he's saying is anything at all that makes the Athlon 64 look worse than the Pentium, with or without trivial things like the support of reality 
quote:
I bet you never expected Naimah to say:
So your saying that no one should get 64 bit processors because there is nothing for it, but no one should make 64 bit programs because there are no processors. I see a flaw in your logic.
I'm saying that if you buy one, you are wasting your money. When the OEMs support them, and more importantly, Microsoft releases a consumer level OS that runs on them, then you should buy them, but by then both Intel and AMD will have a much better product. So, buy a XP or a P4, becuase the 64 is a complete waste.
An exception can be made if you want a cheap ass 64 bit server to run linux with. Then they might be worth the money. But honestly, for the next 6 months, you will probibly get better performance on an MP or P4
quote:
Maradon! stopped lurking long enough to say:
What he's saying is anything at all that makes the Athlon 64 look worse than the Pentium, with or without trivial things like the support of reality
And the only 'reality' I hear coming from you is Tom's Hardware Guide, which is anything but. [ 09-23-2003: Message edited by: Absolut Blindy ]
quote:
Check out the big brain on Absolut Blindy!
I'm saying that if you buy one, you are wasting your money. When the OEMs support them, and more importantly, Microsoft releases a consumer level OS that runs on them, then you should buy them, but by then both Intel and AMD will have a much better product. So, buy a XP or a P4, becuase the 64 is a complete waste.
the reason it's such a big deal is the new architecture, not the fact that it's 64 bit
quote:
Just when we thought Kegwen couldn't get any dumber, they said:
the reason it's such a big deal is the new architecture, not the fact that it's 64 bit
Yes, and the new archetecture is slower than a true 32 bit CPU. For now at least. If AMD manages to get patches released by Microsoft and just about every application writer out there to optimize for their processor, which will never happen, you might see them catch up or even beat a normal 32 bit CPU.
So what are you paying the extra money for?
To say you have a 64 bit CPU?
quote:
How.... Absolut Blindy.... uughhhhhh:
Yes, and the new archetecture is slower than a true 32 bit CPU. For now at least. If AMD manages to get patches released by Microsoft and just about every application writer out there to optimize for their processor, which will never happen, you might see them catch up or even beat a normal 32 bit CPU.So what are you paying the extra money for?
To say you have a 64 bit CPU?
I'm waiting to see how this pans out before I buy anything...
I'm broke, too.
