mysticfire6602
15+ Year Contributor
- 1,192
- 6
- Dec 23, 2004
-
Bloomsburg,
Pennsylvania
slugsgomoo said:my feeling on the A64 line of products is that it is a step *toward* the right direction. Moving to 64 bit is a good choice. However, the x86 platform has major problems that go right to the core of the design. If you compare the x86 to other platforms (like Alpha, Sparc, Itanium, PPC, etc) it is very flawed, and part of the reason it is slower for given speeds is that it is a fairly inneficient design.
The clockspeed war *did* matter, and it did help. You can't honestly tell me that either manufacturers 3ghz+ processors are no faster than a 2ghz, etc. The problem with the clockspeed war is that it became a game of diminishing returns. More and more power, for less and less payoff. It's the same way in tweaking a car. At some point, you go from spending $100-$1000 to pick up some major horsepower, and severely lessen your E/T's, to suddenly spending $10k+ a shot, to save a tenth. The law of diminishing returns applys in most everything, and it always bites you in the ass.
Anyhow, my point regarding the intel stuff, is that office apps are still the most important facet in terms of selling processors. That and longetivity and reliabilty. Every AMD processor i've ever had has been great- fast, cheap, but unfortunately they seem to die more quickly, or at least stop benchmarking as quickly (odd that). intel has the corporate sector pretty well, because they do everything well enough, and they have a reputation that customers trust. AMD is definitely making inroads in this regard, but after the debacles of the K6x, the K7, the Tbird, Athlon XP... well... there are some nasties going on.
For what it's worth, i've got a couple of 3200+ 64bit AMD laptops in my office. They are nice, fast enough, and get the job done. I don't have a problem with them.
Anyhow, for most of my office work, I can bring a 2+ghz machine to it's knees, even with Gobs-o-Ram(TM)
of course i may spend my time hanging out with all the atypical power users who say the same kind of thing.
Anyhow, it's irrelevant.
I won't personally ever, ever- spend another dollar on an AMD product. I'll use them at work if i have to, but... Let's just say that after the crap they pulled with me last time I was left with a very, very sour taste in my mouth.
if you think x86 is more flawed than the itanium you need your head examined. and yes, i honestly can say a 2ghz chip can be faster than a 3ghz chip, its been proven many times.
. Anyways, I agree with a few of your fanboy statements but not a lot of them. I'll agree that AMD def got the jump on intel in the 64bit Architecture arena but that wasn't until late 03 and intel was always setting the benchmark to follow in the CPU industry for quite some time. AMD K6's were a joke. You needed to pratically patch every game/app just to take advantage of it. We'll see what happens when this Dual core stuff comes out and what it means for gaming etc. 
i wouldnt really agree with you when you say intel has been setting the benchmark standard. when the A64 came out about 75% of all reviewers use the A64 as default. and as for the K6, ill agree, it sucked, but again it was early in AMD's career, ya gotta learn from your mistakes. just like intel with the itanium, plain and simple, it sucked major donkey di#k. and even still, the itanium 2 sucks major donkey di#k. and intels BTX "standard" they tried to get out, only a select few few even bothered to make a prototype to see how it ran because it also just plain sucks. its like intel hired a master of feng shui to design the board.
so you're not cool like the rest of us 
