Intel is going to buy AMD64 from AMD?

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » February 9th, 2004, 10:43 pm

There is word going around that for every CPU Intel makes that uses 64-Bit extensions, they will have to pay AMD.
For Intel will use AMD-64 technology.
This will give AMD lots of money!
So Smartweb, if you can't buy AMD64 CPU from AMD, buy them from Intel.

Mobius from DescentBB said, "I suspect Intel is going to licence X86-64 from AMD - and won't that just burn Intel, paying royalties to AMD for every 64-bit desktop CPU they make? Hehe."

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » February 10th, 2004, 2:49 am

Intel would never go for that stuff

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » February 10th, 2004, 5:42 am

They would if everyone wants x86 with 64-Bit.
AMD owns AMD64.
Intel does not own Hyper Threading.
Intel does not own SSE3.
If you own it, you put your name on it.
Think of it this way, Intel can either lose all of their business to AMD or just some of it. Either way, AMD get big money and AMD customers get the goodies while the Intel customers are left with CPUs over 100C that cost 2x as much as normal Intel CPUs would. Of course you get 64-Bit extensions.
In other words, AMD owns Intel until 32-Bit is no longer needed. But, according to many people including Smartweb, this won't happen until like 2015 at least.
Hmm, 10 years that I can say, "How is your AMD64 Intel CPU running?"

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » February 10th, 2004, 11:30 pm

AP Edit:
Uh everything you said was wrong.
Nobody owns x86.
Intel is coming out with 64-Bit CPUs, but it is based on AMD-64 design.
I made the rules so I can break them.
And here is the proof:
http://www.mbreview.com/article.php?sid=4394

PS: Change your sig to something else, its like saying "I'm better than you are." It is unfriendly to AMD lovers. And very difficult to understand, for their are many qualities of a CPU:
Price/Performance
Top Professional Performance
Top Gaming and Office Performance
Environment (32-Bit and 64-Bit)
etc.

smileymattj · Post by **smileymattj** » November 19th, 2004, 11:17 pm

think about what you are saying this is the most stupidiest rumor ever.
I hate AMD lovers tring to make Intel look bad, i dont even see how AMD can compare!

I know this is very untrue, for one Intel has had 64-bit technology way longer than AMD, and two Intel would not buy it when their 32-bits are better than AMD's 64s.

Think about it why would Intel waste money to buy something they have!

If you dont belive me look up Itanium, goto Intel's site they have nothing downgrading AMD, they dont even mention it, but as for AMD, they compare their brand new 64 bit (latest version) to a 2 year old P4. now thats why everyone think AMD is better they put thoughts in your head, dont belive them, believe the benchmarks, not word of mouth.

Aggressor Prime · November 19th, 2004, 11:24 pm

Ah, an Intel fan.
Have this benchmark for fun:

Yep, Intel is truly destroying AMD.

And about Itanium, both Microsoft and HP (Intel's top Itanium partner) reject it now.
AMD64 and EM64T have replaced IA64.
Plus, they can master both 32-Bit and 64-Bit.

smileymattj · Post by **smileymattj** » November 20th, 2004, 12:55 am

hmmm.. funny cus a AMD 3200 64 bit i saw lagged on 800X600 runing doom3, where did you get this, how do i know this is a true benchmark, plus when you have an amd fan behind the benchmarks they are compared unfairly, your benchmarks probelly have HT turned off anyway.

also with PCI Express, you can achive way better graphics on a prescott, causing less lag.

screw AMD because the true benchmarks are that most AMD's transfer at 3200mb/s, and most p4's transfer at 6400mb/s, only the old p4's go at 3200, and only the expensive AMD's hit 6400. both processors also have the same fsb. at 200mhz, AMD refreshes 8x, and Intel at 4X.

gaming performance

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » November 20th, 2004, 1:01 am

holy , you just got told AP...lol I have been waitiing for this moment forever.. THIS GUY IS AMAZING!!!! He has just proven all of my points in your face...haha

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » November 20th, 2004, 2:52 am

That's 3DMark03, not a game.
And about HT:
On = dual 1/2 GHz CPUs
Off = one 1 GHz CPU

A game can only use one CPU, thus making HT useless.

My benchmark is from Anandtech.
Anandtech is the most respected review site for gamers out there.

And about FSB:
Intel's top = 1066MHz
AMD's top = 2000MHz

smileymattj · Post by **smileymattj** » November 20th, 2004, 2:55 am

thats where your wrong, games dont use all the cpu's power, only benchmarking tools use all the cpu's power for a specified time to see how it will hold, there is a differance, games are made for fun, benchmarking tools are for comparing, i told you quit comparing the uncomparible, you want to know why intel scored lower, your gaming comparision, the intel processor had to work less to operate the game.

dont know what your talking about the OS tells the data what processor to goto not the game, HT is real noticable when playing a game, guess you just talking junk about something you've never tried, ive tried both, and speak the truth about which was faster.

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » November 20th, 2004, 2:57 am

Considering the GPUs these days are faster than CPUs, every CPU MHz is used.

smileymattj · Post by **smileymattj** » November 20th, 2004, 3:00 am

not so. the game doesnt use all the power for a specified time, it spikes during a game the benchmark, pushes it to its limits.

also i had to edit my last post cus i didnt see something in your earlyer post

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » November 20th, 2004, 3:02 am

Then why does AMD rule over Intel in that benchmark?

smileymattj · Post by **smileymattj** » November 20th, 2004, 3:05 am

smileymattj wrote: you want to know why intel scored lower, your gaming comparision, the intel processor had to work less to operate the game.

read what i said earlier

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » November 20th, 2004, 3:06 am

It has HT disabled:
It can utilize all of its 3.46GHz.

Post by **ccb056** » November 20th, 2004, 3:11 am

Ok, I'm going to make this very simple where everyone can understand

If you have two systems, each one having the exact same video card, sounds card, ram, and hard drive, the only difference being the processors and motherboard and chipset, an equal performance motherboard and chipset is assumed, an intel system at 'X' mhz will always be SLOWER than the amd system at the same 'X' mhz. It has always been this way and still is. AMDs can do more work per clock cycle, that is exactly why they created the XP amds, an AMD at 1.7 GHz can perform just as well as a Intel 2.1GHz. As far as an Intel 32 bit being faster than a AMD 64 bit, this is not a valid test simply because two different benchamrks/programs were used, you cant use the same exact benchmark to test a 32bit cpu and a 64bit cpu.

PWNED

smileymattj · Post by **smileymattj** » November 20th, 2004, 3:28 am

well then answer this if amd is faster than how come the same mhz speed processers comparible to intel's have have the transfer rate, being 3200 compared to 64 on the intel side.

and in reply to prime saying a game cant use two processors correct me but microsoft's freelancer is a game right, i dont think it does any productive task does it look at this.

here insert this into your browser this server quit supporting direct linking because to many people miss used it

Code: Select all

http://smileymj.freeprohost.com/proof.jpg

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » November 20th, 2004, 3:31 am

I said a game only uses one CPU, not two.

Post by **ccb056** » November 20th, 2004, 5:30 am

Any programmer knows that a program can be optimized for a certain architecture, some programs are optimized to be run on intel cpus with their instruction sets and some programs are written optimized for amd cpu instruction sets. Without playing favorites the AMD will win.

Using a game as a benchmark is possibly one of the least reliable ways of testing the cpu. Using a game as a benchmark is better for testing the ENTIRE system and comparing it against other ENTIRE systems. It is possible to run a game better with a 1GHz CPU and a good gfx card than a 3GHz CPU and a crappy gfx card. Not to mention the sound card plays a major role in the amout of processing power the actual cpu has to dedicate towards processing the sound.

The better the sound card, graphics card, and RAM the less the cpu is used.

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » November 20th, 2004, 5:37 am

AMD Athlon 64 Configuration

Socket-939 Athlon 64 CPUs
2 x 512MB OCZ PC3200 EL Dual Channel DIMMs 2-2-2-10
NVIDIA nForce4 Reference Motherboard
ATI Radeon X800 XT PCI Express

AMD Athlon XP Configuration

Athlon XP 3200+
2 x 512MB OCZ PC3200 EL Dual Channel DIMMs 2-2-2-10
ASUS A7N8X Deluxe nForce2 400 Motherboard
ATI Radeon X800 XT AGP

Intel Pentium 4 Configuration

LGA-775 Intel Pentium 4 and Extreme Edition CPUs
2 x 512MB Crucial DDR-II 533 Dual Channel DIMMs 3-3-3-12
Intel 925XE Motherboard
ATI Radeon X800 XT PCI Express

The only thing that slows Intel down is the DDR2. Everything else is pretty equal. Still, considering DDR2 is Intel's standard, its fair.

AMD Boy · Post by **AMD Boy** » November 20th, 2004, 5:42 am

It is simple. HT is only good for splitting up the processing, not maxing out games. A Pentium 4 3.46GHz EE performs games best when it runs the game at 3.46GHz, not 1.73GHz. Thus, the comparisons are fair.

I have an Athlon 64 2800 and it can destroy the top Intel CPU in SiSoftware Sandra Standard in 32-Bit (>4.0GHz performance). Think about how much Intel will suffer in 64-Bit.

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » November 20th, 2004, 5:47 am

First off, you dont know what the hell you are talking about.. Stop listening to AP.. A 2800+ can NEVER top an Intel Precott 4.0ghz HT.. I don't know where the hell you got your statistics but you better check yourself, because posting stuff that his not true and you don't know enough about is wrong.. If you think it is true, support yourself like AP tries to do.... give me statstics that say an Athlon 64 2800+ beats a Intel Precott 4.0ghz HT

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » November 20th, 2004, 6:04 am

Yes it does.
AMD64 - 10989MIPS
Intel 4.0GHz - 10892MIPs

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » November 20th, 2004, 6:08 am

AMD64 oced... Try beating us at the normal 3000+ speed (1.71ghz)

We can oc to and still win.. That was pointless

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » November 20th, 2004, 6:09 am

It is not if you look at the heat factors.
This CPU (with a retail heatsink) only runs at 57C.
The 3.8GHz runs well above 75C.

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » November 20th, 2004, 6:11 am

and does it have any trouble running at that tempature..NO I bet AMD processors would fry up in seconds if put under conditions such as that

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » November 20th, 2004, 6:16 am

All CPUs, rather Intel or AMD, start tearing apart at 70C.

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » November 20th, 2004, 6:18 am

well, precotts havent dont this yet..

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » November 20th, 2004, 6:19 am

They are.
Do you know how many returns Intel is getting along with broken pin motherboards?

That is why AMD is almost the top seller of CPUs.

Why do you think that Intel stopped at 3.8GHz?
Intel can't do 90nm, it is as simple as that.
AMD knows how to do 90nm, look at their 90nm CPUs.
Less wattage = less heat.

SLaY3r · Post by **SLaY3r** » November 20th, 2004, 7:25 am

Aggressor Prime wrote:AMD knows how to do 90nm, look at their 90nm CPUs.
Less wattage = less heat.

Thats the way its supposed to be. The PresHOTT is a good example of 90nm gone bad.

LVSeminole · Post by **LVSeminole** » November 20th, 2004, 8:01 am

Tebow2000 wrote:AMD64 oced... Try beating us at the normal 3000+ speed (1.71ghz)

We can oc to and still win.. That was pointless

OK, are you up on IT news? Do actually know what an A64 3000+ is clocked at? 2.0 ghz in the Socket 754 form, and 1.8ghz in Socket 939 form. Care to enlighten us anymore on your vast knowledge?

LVS

SLaY3r · Post by **SLaY3r** » November 20th, 2004, 8:16 am

Tebow2000 wrote:and does it have any trouble running at that tempature..NO I bet AMD processors would fry up in seconds if put under conditions such as that

Wow so you think running 75C is alright? I will bring out the stakes and we can have a cookout. AMD doesn't need/or will run @ 75C to be teh own4g3.

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » November 20th, 2004, 3:53 pm

Precott is built to work under those harsh conditions.. AMD would fall apart at those clock speeds.. It would be so UNSTABLE

Nolano · Post by **Nolano** » November 20th, 2004, 4:05 pm

Uhh.... Do you have ANY proof whatsoever? I have proof that Prescott 3.8s can crash and throttle if silver thermal paste is not used.

Code: Select all

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041114/index.html

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » November 20th, 2004, 4:14 pm

thermal paste is supposed to be used though.,. It is so that the heatsink will conduct heat better.

Nolano · Post by **Nolano** » November 20th, 2004, 4:21 pm

SILVER PASTE!!! If you had bothered to read the article, you would have realized that the plain thermal paste that comes with most heatsinks causes the CPU to crash and throttle.

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » November 20th, 2004, 4:31 pm

hey dumbass.. Thermal Paste is SILVER PASATE

Nolano · Post by **Nolano** » November 20th, 2004, 5:09 pm

I know. If you were smart enough to realize I was saying that normla thermal paste doesnt work(non silver, the kind that comes with almost ALL heatsinks and such), then you would know what I'm saying. If it aint silver or better, it wont work. in other words, those people that buy a new heatsink without buying silver paste, say hello to throttled 3.8.

smileymattj · Post by **smileymattj** » November 20th, 2004, 6:47 pm

jiust downloaded the newest version of SiSoftware Sandra Standard in 32-Bit and it doesnt even have the 64 bit or the prescott or the EE so think before you speak.

also you talking about stablity, why do i see many AMD processors go bad faster than a Intel, AMD's are notorious for their heat, ive seen AMDs tear up so much more than an Intel in a ratio 1:3, and i work on more Intels so i see more, so that's is unfair that ive work on over a hundred intels and only about 10 AMD's and more AMD's still were bad.

Also when a AMD processor goes bad it is more likely to knock out the systemboard with it, an Intel is not likely to do that.

hell no, my 450's dont tear up at 70 degrees, check intel.com they say it can handle 90 degrees, and i have ran them without fans for days just to test this, can a AMD run fanless for days, no, i didnt have a tempurature utitly, but i know they get hotter than 70. and run just as stable as with a fan.

also i have a 200mhz pentium mmx, overclocked to 266 running fanless, with the tinyest heaksink i could find, it have been on for over a week, no probelm yet. gave me blisters when i touched the heatsink

Nolano · Post by **Nolano** » November 20th, 2004, 9:05 pm

you know, I cant say I've heard AMD's being notorious for heat. Not saying your wrong, I just think newer AMD's run cooler than newer Intel's.

Aggressor Prime · November 20th, 2004, 10:51 pm

I touched a Prescott retail heatsink once. It burned me.
Then I touched my AMD64's heatsink with an extremely overclocked Athlon 64 2800. It felt like room temperature.

Yep, Intel CPUs are really healthy.

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » November 21st, 2004, 4:39 am

lol first off, your are full of it ap.. oh no, it burnt me

SLaY3r · Post by **SLaY3r** » November 21st, 2004, 6:56 am

Tebow2000 wrote:lol first off, your are full of it ap.. oh no, it burnt me

Considering you could make medium rare stakes on it, yeah it would hurt.

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » November 21st, 2004, 5:57 pm

he dosent even have a prescott

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » November 21st, 2004, 6:04 pm

At my job last summer.

indomidable · Post by **indomidable** » March 10th, 2005, 11:54 am

Ok a nice little summary.... Intel will probably have to pay a batch licence fee for the use of the AMD64 instruction set (compair this to MMX, SSE, SSE2) Who knows if they just didn't trade SSE2, for it? The only reason P4's are even alive still is their Huge on Chip Cache and most encoding programs can use SSE,SSE2 (Both instruction sets developed by Intel and Emulated on some AMD's) Obivously the Optimised CPU for MMX, SSE, SSE2 is Intel. On the other hand AMD created a 3DNow, 3DNow2 set to increase its gaming preformance. AMD64 vs P432bit (HT = 2 CPU's not nessarly 1/2 cpu speed but significant loss in speed for single process programs) to utilize a Dual processor system the Code needs to be parallel wich takes a higher skilled programmer then the common App etc. has... For those of us who were around for the 16bit to 32bit CPU transition you'll remember the preformance boost on those old 16 bit programs just from having a more capable CPU (286 to the 386 transition). And it took from win 3.11 to Win98 to fully exploit the 32bit CPU architecture. If you really want to talk about a CPU that could potentialy kill the X86 it'd be the Cell system developed by IBM, Sony, and Toshiba. But like I was explaining untill programs are written to use multiprocessors the preformance is possibly going to drop, meanwhile those programs allowing mutiprocessors will execell. Sorry but most games are made to run on 1 CPU, a smart OS will run it's processes/services on the second one and assign the Primary program the first CPU, or Vice-Versa. The problem with HT is that most programs don't use 2 CPU's so on a Benchmark program your going to see a loss of points unless the benchmark has dual,quad, etc. CPU support. Rundown Ghz doesn't really matter it's Instructions per cycle that matter and AMD built the better Instructions per cycle chip. Intel went the Ghz way a mix of both would create an incredible chip and that's where the K8's and 9's are supposed to be including more cache since RAM is so slow compaired to cache. If you have any questions on this matter it's easily remedied use your favorite search engine and look up programming basics, or words you don't understand. If you want to get into programming I recommend Python for a beginner language.

marine_512 · Post by **marine_512** » March 30th, 2005, 3:45 am

Aggressor Prime wrote:Ah, an Intel fan. Have this benchmark for fun: Yep, Intel is truly destroying AMD. And about Itanium, both Microsoft and HP (Intel's top Itanium partner) reject it now. AMD64 and EM64T have replaced IA64. Plus, they can master both 32-Bit and 64-Bit.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2004122 ... #directx_9 http://www20.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041 ... ts-15.html http://www20.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041 ... ts-13.html