AMD edges Intel in early dual-core benchmarks

TalkBack 28 of 80:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

Er...

Are you a freaking moron? You just believe what ever you want. That is what you are saying by saying don't be objective. Second since when in the H E double toothpicks did IBM Ever build a chip.

Wake up and smell the coffee...

IBM has been making chips for YEARS. Who do you think builds the chips for their BIG IRON? That's MAINFRAME for those in Rio Linda.

And I suppose you've never heard of the POWER PC family - including the G4 and G5 chips - most noted for being the core processor chip used by a little botique shop known as APPLE...

And then there's the Cell chip that's gonna be the main brains of the new PS/3 (when released).

Granted, these do not normally compete with AMD and Intel directly. And for that matter, if memory serves, IBM at one time DID make Intel based processors. This would have been in the "dark ages" of the 286/386 era.

But that is only because m$ built win 64 for AMD not Intel, so that is not fair for Intel.

Microsoft did indeed build the additions to Windows based on the AMD codebase to make it 64 bit. Of course, you can't forget that Intel basically walked into AMD's offices and confiscated AMD's research, designs and blueprints to the AMD 64 bit chips.

This is, of course after they (Intel) realized that their Itanic chip wasn't going to fly quite as well as they figured and the Opteron was going to be THE ticket for small to mid level businesses. How else do you think they managed to pull a rabbit out of their proverbial hat in such a short time?

What's NOT fair is that Intel has the right to go into AMD's offices and grab any R & D AMD's done and walk off with it. This is from a court ruling that settled Intel's suit against AMD for cloning the Pentium chip. In essence, Intel can walk into AMD and take whatever they want.

So, for what it's worth, if Intel's been able to grab all of AMD's coding and chip features and incorporate them into their own design (however flawed), the tests should be more or less balanced.

So the test's are flawed and serve only as a "BENCHMARK" Not a real world matter fact this is better than that.

So what good IS a benchmark if it doesn't tell you which is better? By definition, a benchmark is: "To measure (a rival's product) according to specified standards in order to compare it with and improve one's own product."* Of course these benchmarks will tell you which is better - for your needs. If you do a lot of video processing, Intel seems to be the way to go. If you're into gaming, then AMD's the obvious choice.

*Definition from Dictionary.com

Posted by: Wolfie2K3   Posted on: 06/01/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Five Steps to Determine When to Virtualize YourServers VMware Server virtualization isn't just for big companies. Entry-level ... Download Now
• Why Isn't Server Virtualization Saving Us More? A Few Small Changes May Dramatically Increase Your Efficiency VMware Companies have rapidly adopted server virtualization over the past few ... Download Now
• The True Costs of Virtual Server Solutions VMware In an economic environment that is repeatedly heralding the message "do ... Download Now