 |
| |
|
|
Akka
|
 |
In front of my computer.
Nov 2001
time: 06:19
|
|
Aaah, I see that Mr InsincerityIntelandMSaremypals is back to add some more propaganda in our minds 
I know I should finish my work rather than answering to this, but it's just too funny, I have to keep our buffoon trolling 
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
Oh boy, another kid who thinks he knows something...
IA-64 is far, far more than a simple 64-bit processor. It is radically different than x86-64. x86-64 is s cheap kludge to add 64-bit registers to x86 and corresponding instructions. That is insanely easy to do. The reason why Intel didn't want to go there is because most developers want x86 dead. It's old, it's obsolete, it's kludgey, it's got a stack-based FPU which is simply horrible to work with, it spends about 30% of its clocktime overcoming inherent shortcomings of x86. |
Too bad that most CONSUMERS wants the x86 alive to not have to throw all the programs they had accumulated for more than ten years to the garbage.
And it's still a little too soon to talk about performance (hopefully for Intel, as their Merced was nothing but inimpressive, and Itanium was such a flop that is seems they will bypass it entirely to go directly to Preyscott).
quote:
IA-64 was a radically new instruction set and architecture based upon 20 years of University research.
Saying that AMD was able to build a 64-bit processor in far less time than Intel is an absolute joke, you're implying that AMD is more skilled than Intel.
It's like this: If you take someone else's 30-page essay and add on 1 paragraph to it and change some spelling, you can do it far faster than the kid who had to research, think about, and then write his own 30-page essay from scratch.
|
Too bad, AMD did not used anything from Intel to make their own 64-bit processor. They used their own technology. Nice try
quote:
The 2.53GHz is the undisputed speed king.
|
Of course, as it compensate its ridiculous MHz by MHz performance by simply reaching higher frequency. It's called brute force and it's nothing impressive
At the same frequency, any P4 take a beating even with the best RAM and the best MB.
At the same price, the performance difference is even more ridiculous
quote:
Twice as much? Where did you take math?
512MB RDRAM: $124
512MB PC2700 DDR: $113
The price different is staggering! (From PriceWatch)
|
What a pile of insincerity
124$ is for PC600 RDRAM, not PC800. If you want to compare equivalent memory, you have then to compare to the PC2100 DDR, which is at 75$ and not 113.
For PC800, it's 154$ (according to PriceWatch too).
So it's now :
512 Mo PC2100 : 75$
512 Mo PC800 : 154$
Ooooh, how surprising
quote:
And you do know that the P4 supports SDRAM, DDR, and RDRAM, right? Not just RDRAM?
|
And you know that using anything else than RDRAM shot down the performance of P4, which rely on huge bandwith memory ?
quote:
And about motherboards:
KT333 chipset: $72
i850: $65
How do you figure P4 motherboards are more expensive? Is 65 > 72 now?
|
You're comparing the i850 chipset (which has a 100 MHz frequency) to the KT333 one (which has a frequency of 166 MHz).
How insincere again
Let's talk about comparable chipsets :
i850 : 65$
KT266A : 55$
KT266 : 16$
Is 16 > 65 now ?
quote:
Of course.
Your benchmark is from an obsolete program that was made before the Pentium 4 came out, obviously optimized towards P3/Athlon cores rather than all three.
|
Yours is from a program that is SEE2 optimized. At least, I have said loudly that I was selecting the bench that favourized AMD, while you were trying to say that yours was representative of the overall performances.
quote:
That doesn't matter, AMD intentionally made the PR ratings conservative so people like you can say "Hey! Match at the PR ratings the Athlon is faster! GO AMD! WOO!".
|
I can get rid of the PR-Rating :
Athlon 1700+ runs at 1,466 GHz and cost 79$.
P4 1,7 runs at 1,7 GHz and cost 130 $.
So, a P4 1,7 GHz cost nearly twice as much as an Athlon 1,466 GHz while being slightly less powerful. But you'll be saying that Intel's chips are better, of course
quote:
The 2.53GHz P4, even with PC800 RDRAM (Performance hits 5-10% higher with PC1066), is the undisputed speed king.
|
If you don't look at the price, sure (P4 2,4 GHz : 499$, the P4 2,533 is of course much more expensive).
Now if you don't look at the price, a Cray supercalculator is even more powerful, so it's stupid.
For the price of a single P4 2,4 GHz, I can buy a dual-processor motherboard and two Athlon 2000+. But I suppose you'll tell that a P4 2,4 is able to beat two Athlon 2000+ easily ?
I'm not even talking about the RDRAM PC1066 price either
quote:
Don't try to spin it another way, facts are facts.
To quote Anand:
Intel was creeping ahead of AMD in the performance tests when they released the 2.4GHz Pentium 4, but now with 533MHz FSB parts and bumping the clock speed up to 2.53GHz the performance crown is undeniably Intel's. Intel will claim the right to the highest performing desktop microprocessor.
Also note that this was with PC800, not PC1066 RDRAM which should be available shortly. |
Don't try to spin it another way, facts are facts.
To quote Anand (yes, yes, the exact same article that your used).
Although the 2.53GHz Pentium 4 trounces the Athlon XP 2100+, the chip is well over twice as expensive as the Athlon XP. AMD's Athlon line has almost always offered a significantly better value than Intel's competing solutions;
(bold NOT mine)
And when he says "well over twice as expensive", he's saying understatement
Well, it was funny to shoot each of your biased argument one after another
Please more, you're entertaining
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Too bad that most CONSUMERS wants the x86 alive to not have to throw all the programs they had accumulated for more than ten years to the garbage. |
Gee, I wish IA-64 processors could still run x86 code. Oh, wait! THEY CAN!
quote:
And it's still a little too soon to talk about performance (hopefully for Intel, as their Merced was nothing but inimpressive, and Itanium was such a flop that is seems they will bypass it entirely to go directly to Preyscott). |
I'm not sure what you're saying here.
McKinley is the next IA-64 processor, due out in June. Prescott is the next IA-32 processor, based on the Pentium 4.
quote:
Too bad, AMD did not used anything from Intel to make their own 64-bit processor. They used their own technology. Nice try |
You do know that x86 was made by Intel, right?
You do know that the core of the Athlon (of which the Hammer is based on), is remarkably similar to Intel's P6 core, with some changes?
quote:
Of course, as it compensate its ridiculous MHz by MHz performance by simply reaching higher frequency. It's called brute force and it's nothing impressive
At the same frequency, any P4 take a beating even with the best RAM and the best MB.
At the same price, the performance difference is even more ridiculous |
It's not brute force. The P4 has high MHz not because of brute force (actually, theoretically it's half as fast as the Athlon at the same clock -- but it's more like 70% as fast at the same clock). It has a high MHz rating because the Intel bigwigs like MHz ratings (that's what sells most computers), but also because SMT on the Pentium 4s benefit greatly from a long pipeline with 20-stages, which is what the Pentium 4 offers.
quote:
What a pile of insincerity
124$ is for PC600 RDRAM, not PC800. If you want to compare equivalent memory, you have then to compare to the PC2100 DDR, which is at 75$ and not 113.
For PC800, it's 154$ (according to PriceWatch too).
So it's now :
512 Mo PC2100 : 75$
512 Mo PC800 : 154$
Ooooh, how surprising |
Why is PC2100 equivalent? 2.1GB/s vs 3.2GB/s?
PC2700 is 2.7GB/s, which is what I just put in my new computer, so it's fair to use that price.
Also: VERY nice try. Click on the "buy online" link for the $124 RDRAM: It clearly says PC800. $124 for PC800. Stop trying to trick me, you're too slow for that.
quote:
And you know that using anything else than RDRAM shot down the performance of P4, which rely on huge bandwith memory ? |
Actually PC2700 DDR worked extremely well on the P4.
quote:
You're comparing the i850 chipset (which has a 100 MHz frequency) to the KT333 one (which has a frequency of 166 MHz).
How insincere again
Let's talk about comparable chipsets :
i850 : 65$
KT266A : 55$
KT266 : 16$
Is 16 > 65 now ?
|
It's $16 because it's discontinued and they're obsolete, don't play that game.
i850 is the fastest Intel chipset, KT333 is the fastest Athlon chipset -- how is that not fair? You're comparing the fastest Intel to the discontinued and slower Via one. Wow, you're not trying to trick me or anything...
quote:
Yours is from a program that is SEE2 optimized. At least, I have said loudly that I was selecting the bench that favourized AMD, while you were trying to say that yours was representative of the overall performances. |
That's right: SSE2 is something AMD can't do right now. It's one of the major benefits of the P4, and more and more programs are using it. It's a real world performance boost in SSE2 applications.
quote:
I can get rid of the PR-Rating :
Athlon 1700+ runs at 1,466 GHz and cost 79$.
P4 1,7 runs at 1,7 GHz and cost 130 $.
So, a P4 1,7 GHz cost nearly twice as much as an Athlon 1,466 GHz while being slightly less powerful. But you'll be saying that Intel's chips are better, of course |
I'm not saying anything about price (I bought an Athlon XP 2100+ just this week because of price, actually).
I also think it's INCREDIBLY stupid to compare P4s and Athlons on a clock-for-clock basis like you're trying to do. The P4 intentionally does less per clock than the Athlon, go figure it's slower per clock. But the P4 can also hit higher clockrates than the Athlon. What I do is I compare the fastest P4 to the fastest Athlon, and make my judgement about what's best from there. A chip that does a lot per clock but can't scale very well (like Motorolla's G4) doesn't impress me much. All performance factors need to be considered: Clock ceiling, instructions per clock. In this case, the P4 wins. It also wins in benchmarks. It does NOT win in the price/performance area: AMD does there.
quote:
If you don't look at the price, sure (P4 2,4 GHz : 499$, the P4 2,533 is of course much more expensive).
Now if you don't look at the price, a Cray supercalculator is even more powerful, so it's stupid.
For the price of a single P4 2,4 GHz, I can buy a dual-processor motherboard and two Athlon 2000+. But I suppose you'll tell that a P4 2,4 is able to beat two Athlon 2000+ easily ?
I'm not even talking about the RDRAM PC1066 price either |
You're trying to divert this to a discussion about cost -- which it never was about. It was about raw performance and design. Stick with it.
I know that the Athlons are a far better deal, price-wise, but that doesn't change the fact that the P4 is the better chip.
Drop it with the price ****, I never once argued that and that's ALL you're arguing now. It's called a strawman.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Akka
|
|
In front of my computer.
Nov 2001
time: 06:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
Gee, I wish IA-64 processors could still run x86 code. Oh, wait! THEY CAN!
|
Yes, and for that they take a HUGE BLAST in performance, as they do have to EMULATE the 32 bits mode. While Hammer can do it natively.
For someone who is so hungry of performance, I'm surprised that you consider ok to emulate anything...
quote:
I'm not sure what you're saying here.
McKinley is the next IA-64 processor, due out in June. Prescott is the next IA-32 processor, based on the Pentium 4.|/QUOTE]
My bad, I just mixed the name Prescott with the name McKinley.
[QUOTE]
You do know that x86 was made by Intel, right?
You do know that the core of the Athlon (of which the Hammer is based on), is remarkably similar to Intel's P6 core, with some changes?
|
You do know that all these chips are 32-bits, right ?
You do know that we are talking about 64-bits processors, right ?
quote:
It's not brute force. The P4 has high MHz not because of brute force (actually, theoretically it's half as fast as the Athlon at the same clock -- but it's more like 70% as fast at the same clock). It has a high MHz rating because the Intel bigwigs like MHz ratings (that's what sells most computers), but also because SMT on the Pentium 4s benefit greatly from a long pipeline with 20-stages, which is what the Pentium 4 offers.
|
? 
If bunch of MHz is not raw brute strenght, then WHAT is raw brute strenght ?
quote:
Why is PC2100 equivalent? 2.1GB/s vs 3.2GB/s?
PC2700 is 2.7GB/s, which is what I just put in my new computer, so it's fair to use that price.
|
PC2700 is useless if you run at 133 MHz, it's only used for 166 MHz. And most PC2100 can still be used at 166 MHz, practically making them PC2700 anyway.
quote:
Also: VERY nice try. Click on the "buy online" link for the $124 RDRAM: It clearly says PC800. $124 for PC800. Stop trying to trick me, you're too slow for that. |
Very nice try for you too. But here is what shows when you click on the link :
See the "PC600" ?
quote:
Actually PC2700 DDR worked extremely well on the P4.
|
The P4's architecture needs a LOT of bandwidth, which the RDRAM can do better. Any attempt to use DDR for a P4 shows a drop of about 10% in performance.
quote:
It's $16 because it's discontinued and they're obsolete, don't play that game.
i850 is the fastest Intel chipset, KT333 is the fastest Athlon chipset -- how is that not fair? You're comparing the fastest Intel to the discontinued and slower Via one. Wow, you're not trying to trick me or anything...
|
The fastest chipset is NOT i850 (FSB : 100 MHz), it's i850E (FSB : 133 MHz), which is the whole thing making the new P4 2,533 MHz possible. The i850 is the SECOND fastest chipset for P4. So you have to compare it to the SECOND fastest chipset for Athlon - which is the 266 one, while the 333 is the brand new.
quote:
That's right: SSE2 is something AMD can't do right now. It's one of the major benefits of the P4, and more and more programs are using it. It's a real world performance boost in SSE2 applications. |
The AMD has their own path of optimisation, the 3DNow! serie. And they can use the SSE instruction too. A fair comparison would involve a program that has been either optimized for both, either for none.
quote:
I'm not saying anything about price (I bought an Athlon XP 2100+ just this week because of price, actually).
I also think it's INCREDIBLY stupid to compare P4s and Athlons on a clock-for-clock basis like you're trying to do. The P4 intentionally does less per clock than the Athlon, go figure it's slower per clock. But the P4 can also hit higher clockrates than the Athlon. What I do is I compare the fastest P4 to the fastest Athlon, and make my judgement about what's best from there. A chip that does a lot per clock but can't scale very well (like Motorolla's G4) doesn't impress me much. All performance factors need to be considered: Clock ceiling, instructions per clock. In this case, the P4 wins. It also wins in benchmarks. It does NOT win in the price/performance area: AMD does there.
You're trying to divert this to a discussion about cost -- which it never was about. It was about raw performance and design. Stick with it.
I know that the Athlons are a far better deal, price-wise, but that doesn't change the fact that the P4 is the better chip.
Drop it with the price ****, I never once argued that and that's ALL you're arguing now. It's called a strawman. |
Well, as I said before, if you don't count the price, then I can come with a Cray supercomputer and say "Intel sucks big time compared to this". Or I can use Deeper Blue or anything else. It's useless to compare things that are not at the same price.
Of course, if you only seek to get the processor that has actually the highest raw power, it's the P4 2,533 GHz. But then I don't see the point. What a consumer want is the best he can have for the money he will put in.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Yes, and for that they take a HUGE BLAST in performance, as they do have to EMULATE the 32 bits mode. While Hammer can do it natively.
For someone who is so hungry of performance, I'm surprised that you consider ok to emulate anything... |
That's right, but it takes the cake in that the IA-64 significantly outperforms x86-64 in 64-bit applications. x86-64 is, in effect, "emulating" 64-bit. It's pretty fast in 32-bit, but it doesn't do anything special for 64-bit.
And I intend to use a 32-bit processor to do 32-bit gaming, and a 64-bit processor to do 64-bit gaming anyway. I don't like the half-assed approach to 64-bit computing that Hammer represents really. It's time to ditch x86 and move on.
I've heard that McKinley greatly improves x86 performance, though. You can rest assured that by the time IA-64 is aimed to the desktop (2004-2005), it'll have excellent 32-bit performance in x86. Otherwise no one would buy it.
quote:
You do know that all these chips are 32-bits, right ?
You do know that we are talking about 64-bits processors, right ? |
I'm not sure you're aware about the hammer.
Hammer is a slightly modified Athlon, which in turn is a modified P6. It's not an all-new 64-bit core, it's a kludged 32-bit core using a couple decades-old instruction set with many known shortcomings. It's a cheap design that AMD could afford to do, and it looks great on paper but people are already whining about keeping x86 alive...
quote:
?
If bunch of MHz is not raw brute strenght, then WHAT is raw brute strenght ? |
MHz is not the only determinant of "strength" in a processor. You could argue that the G4 is strong in "brute strength" because it's a "fat" processor that does a lot per clock.
"brute strength" is the IBM Power4. Huge, hot, but very powerful.
quote:
PC2700 is useless if you run at 133 MHz, it's only used for 166 MHz. And most PC2100 can still be used at 166 MHz, practically making them PC2700 anyway. |
Hey, no kidding?
Most PC2100 can't, actually. Most PC2100 that can is now packaged and sold as PC2700. And the KT333 runs the memory bus at 166MHz, so does the latest SiS chip.
quote:
The P4's architecture needs a LOT of bandwidth, which the RDRAM can do better. Any attempt to use DDR for a P4 shows a drop of about 10% in performance. |
DDR333 and DDR400 show about a 5-10% drop, but if you're so paranoid about pricing...
Going to an Athlon also drops performance, what's your point?
quote:
The fastest chipset is NOT i850 (FSB : 100 MHz), it's i850E (FSB : 133 MHz), which is the whole thing making the new P4 2,533 MHz possible. The i850 is the SECOND fastest chipset for P4. So you have to compare it to the SECOND fastest chipset for Athlon - which is the 266 one, while the 333 is the brand new. |
The i850 is exactly identical to the i850E, actually. The only difference is the i850E has a sticker on the box that says it can go at a 133MHz system bus (effectively 533MHz). I'm not joking, the steppings and everything are exactly identical.
quote:
The AMD has their own path of optimisation, the 3DNow! serie. And they can use the SSE instruction too. A fair comparison would involve a program that has been either optimized for both, either for none. |
AMD is ditching 3DNow. Hammer will support SSE and SSE2 instead. 3DNow just isn't cutting it: it hijacked the FPU to do the calculations which hurt performance for switching between x87 and 3DNow. Intel's got dedicated SSE/SSE2 units onboard, and the Athlon XP has SSE now. Hammer will have SSE2.
quote:
Well, as I said before, if you don't count the price, then I can come with a Cray supercomputer and say "Intel sucks big time compared to this". Or I can use Deeper Blue or anything else. It's useless to compare things that are not at the same price. |
Those aren't desktop computers. 
They won't play my games, so what use are they? 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:19
|
|
You shouldn't be so hard on yourself, Asher. You know people here are only playing with your feelings.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Akka
|
|
In front of my computer.
Nov 2001
time: 06:19
|
|
Well, you've finished to amuse me, now you're becoming tiresome... 
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
You didn't destroy a single thing. In fact, you've astonished me with your inaccuracies and I'm beginning to wonder if someone could really think that or if you just enjoy trolling. |
What's funny is that from my point of view, YOU are the one full with innaccuracies and, more importantly, biased conclusions.
quote:
You can rest assured that by the time IA-64 is aimed to the desktop (2004-2005), it'll have excellent 32-bit performance in x86. |
2004-2005 is no soon. Don't see the point to argue about proc that won't be here before two years, as nobody can even imagine the kind of performance they will have.
quote:
I'm not sure you're aware about the hammer.
Hammer is a slightly modified Athlon, which in turn is a modified P6. It's not an all-new 64-bit core, it's a kludged 32-bit core using a couple decades-old instruction set with many known shortcomings. It's a cheap design that AMD could afford to do, and it looks great on paper but people are already whining about keeping x86 alive... |
I'm perfectly aware about the Hammer, and what I'm seeing is that it will be available before the end of the year and that you can argue 'till your tongue become blue that it's a cheap design, it still seems to have a hell of a horsepower in it, and it CAN runs 64 bits programs at least as fast as 32 bits ones.
quote:
MHz is not the only determinant of "strength" in a processor. You could argue that the G4 is strong in "brute strength" because it's a "fat" processor that does a lot per clock.
"brute strength" is the IBM Power4. Huge, hot, but very powerful.
|
Gaah... That is a semantic arguing. I define the "raw strenght" by the most simple and less elegant way to boost the power of a processor : frequency. A processor that does more per clock is more elegant, as its design allow it to be more efficient rather than simply relying of more MHz.
quote:
Hey, no kidding?
Most PC2100 can't, actually. Most PC2100 that can is now packaged and sold as PC2700.
|
We probably don't buy our RAM at the same place then.
quote:
DDR333 and DDR400 show about a 5-10% drop, but if you're so paranoid about pricing...
Going to an Athlon also drops performance, what's your point?
|
Again insincerity.
YOU were the one arguing that a P4 runs perfectly well with DDR333.
I just reminded you that using DDR with a P4 is shooting the performance.
And I'm the one that is full of innaccuracies ?
quote:
The i850 is exactly identical to the i850E, actually. The only difference is the i850E has a sticker on the box that says it can go at a 133MHz system bus (effectively 533MHz). I'm not joking, the steppings and everything are exactly identical.
|
So much insincerity AGAIN.
YOU were the one insinsting on the comparison of what both platform has best in chipset. When I compared the i850 to KT266 you said that it was an old and obsolete chipset.
Now you say that i850 can be used as i850E because it can go to 133 MHz too. Well, my own motherboard can go up to 166 MHz, and it's not even a KT266, it's just a KT133. Either we're talking about the OFFICIAL performances, and then you have to stick to i850E and not i850, either we're talking about the UNOFFICIAL performances, and then I can select the KT266 and not the KT333. Both case Athlon's chipset is cheaper, bot cases you're wrong.
quote:
You aren't even replying to the topic anymore, just like UR does when he starts to falter. It's pathetic, really. |
What use is to stay on-topic with you ? You show such a great amount of insincerity and stubborness that it's like talking with a wall. I tried again this time, and I'm pretty sure that you'll still twist facts just to "prove" your ways.
Moreover, you're aggressive like a unsecure teen that need to show to the world that he's trying to becoming a man.
You should ask yourself if people not staying on-topic with you is not a problem coming from you rather than they.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Akka le Vil
2004-2005 is no soon. Don't see the point to argue about proc that won't be here before two years, as nobody can even imagine the kind of performance they will have. |
IA-64 was never meant to be on the desktop soon. It's intended to mature in high end/scientific workstations and then brought to the desktop when there's real demand for it. There is absolutely no need for 64-bit desktops right now. None. I don't know if you believe in the myth that 64-bit == more speed, but that's not correct. 64-bit == more precision, and all it means here is essentially integer precision. We've already got 80-bit floating point precision.
quote:
I'm perfectly aware about the Hammer, and what I'm seeing is that it will be available before the end of the year and that you can argue 'till your tongue become blue that it's a cheap design, it still seems to have a hell of a horsepower in it, and it CAN runs 64 bits programs at least as fast as 32 bits ones. |
Yes, and I never said otherwise.
That doesn't change the fact that it's a quick kludge to a 32-bit CPU to have 64-bit registers and instructions.
quote:
Gaah... That is a semantic arguing. I define the "raw strenght" by the most simple and less elegant way to boost the power of a processor : frequency. A processor that does more per clock is more elegant, as its design allow it to be more efficient rather than simply relying of more MHz. |
You're right, it is semantic arguing. Why did you bring it up?
There IS no "strength" in CPU, strength is determined by IPC * MHz if anything. So when you basically claim the Athlon is more elegant (which it most certainly is NOT, it's a collection of kludges already!) just because it does more per clock, then by your logic the 386 is the most elegant chip ever.
quote:
We probably don't buy our RAM at the same place then. |
You don't buy from Samsung, Corsair, or Kingston? Because all of those put their high-yield PC2100 parts (ie: parts that will hit PC2700) and sell them as PC2700. It's called speed-binning. Prior to PC2700 this wasn't a problem, but now that PC2700 is out you'll find less PC2100 parts that will hit PC2700.
quote:
Again insincerity.
YOU were the one arguing that a P4 runs perfectly well with DDR333.
I just reminded you that using DDR with a P4 is shooting the performance.
And I'm the one that is full of innaccuracies ? |
A P4 with DDR333 *DOES* run Perfectly Well. That is in NO WAY inaccurate.
Look up some benchmarks. Like these, for example: http://www.tomshardware.com/mainboa...is645dx-06.html
You are full of inaccuracies, and this is a shining example.
quote:
So much insincerity AGAIN.
YOU were the one insinsting on the comparison of what both platform has best in chipset. When I compared the i850 to KT266 you said that it was an old and obsolete chipset.
Now you say that i850 can be used as i850E because it can go to 133 MHz too. Well, my own motherboard can go up to 166 MHz, and it's not even a KT266, it's just a KT133. Either we're talking about the OFFICIAL performances, and then you have to stick to i850E and not i850, either we're talking about the UNOFFICIAL performances, and then I can select the KT266 and not the KT333. Both case Athlon's chipset is cheaper, bot cases you're wrong. |
KT333 is more than KT266 with a 166MHz memory bus. In fact, it has an entire new northbridge. The i850 and i850E are EXACTLY the same, except motherboard makers can now officially sell them as 533MHz parts.
quote:
What use is to stay on-topic with you ? You show such a great amount of insincerity and stubborness that it's like talking with a wall. I tried again this time, and I'm pretty sure that you'll still twist facts just to "prove" your ways.
Moreover, you're aggressive like a unsecure teen that need to show to the world that he's trying to becoming a man.
You should ask yourself if people not staying on-topic with you is not a problem coming from you rather than they. |
Look, I don't know where you get your information, but your information is usually wrong. Add to this that you're setting up strawmen and twisting words around and constantly calling me "insincere" (which isn't even RELEVANT to any of this).
You've no clue what you're talking about here, you're just bickering with everything I say (no matter how indisputably right it is) because you don't want to lose. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Akka
|
|
In front of my computer.
Nov 2001
time: 06:19
|
|
Well, this does REALLY bore me now. We were talking about performances issues and comparison between AMD & Intel at first, and this has gotten far away in other direction. Let's recenter it.
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
IA-64 was never meant to be on the desktop soon. It's intended to mature in high end/scientific workstations and then brought to the desktop when there's real demand for it. There is absolutely no need for 64-bit desktops right now. None. I don't know if you believe in the myth that 64-bit == more speed, but that's not correct. 64-bit == more precision, and all it means here is essentially integer precision. We've already got 80-bit floating point precision. |
Again : we'll see when it will happen. No need to talk in the air.
quote:
Yes, and I never said otherwise.
That doesn't change the fact that it's a quick kludge to a 32-bit CPU to have 64-bit registers and instructions.
|
We'll see how it fare against the Itanium. Personnally, I don't very much have a doubt about the outcome, which it would be in the 32 or the 64 bits area.
quote:
You're right, it is semantic arguing. Why did you bring it up?
There IS no "strength" in CPU, strength is determined by IPC * MHz if anything. So when you basically claim the Athlon is more elegant (which it most certainly is NOT, it's a collection of kludges already!) just because it does more per clock, then by your logic the 386 is the most elegant chip ever. |
A 486DX33 was certainly not less powerful than a 386DX33. A Pentium 100 was nearly twice as powerful than a 486DX4 100. A Pentium II 233 was at least as powerful as a Pentium 233. An Athlon beats any Pentium on a clock-by-clock basis. I then highly doubt that a 386 is able to do more per clock than an Athlon.
quote:
You don't buy from Samsung, Corsair, or Kingston? Because all of those put their high-yield PC2100 parts (ie: parts that will hit PC2700) and sell them as PC2700. It's called speed-binning. Prior to PC2700 this wasn't a problem, but now that PC2700 is out you'll find less PC2100 parts that will hit PC2700. |
I buy from my own seller, and I just ask him for RAM that can be overclocked
You are full of insincerity, and this is a shining example. We were talking about performance, right ? And performances-speaking, putting DDR on a P4 is suicide. I can put some SDRAM PC66 on an Athlon, it will work too. But I won't make any performance comparison with another chip in this situation.
quote:
KT333 is more than KT266 with a 166MHz memory bus. In fact, it has an entire new northbridge. The i850 and i850E are EXACTLY the same, except motherboard makers can now officially sell them as 533MHz parts.
|
Well, right. Point taken.
quote:
Look, I don't know where you get your information, but your information is usually wrong. Add to this that you're setting up strawmen and twisting words around and constantly calling me "insincere" (which isn't even RELEVANT to any of this).
You've no clue what you're talking about here, you're just bickering with everything I say (no matter how indisputably right it is) because you don't want to lose. |
Must be a question of point of view, 'cause what you see in me, I see it in you. I use "insincerity" is your habit to twist the facts to make them accord to your views, which is well relevant to the argument.
Now, it's becoming tedious. If you learn to discuss without ending in insults (not that I was not a little bit provocative, I admit ) and if you start to back up with NON-BIASED data, I will feel commited to answer again. But if you still keep the same stubborn way, well, you're on your own.
Last edited by Akka on 13-05-2002 at 07:15
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Akka le Vil
A Pentium II 233 was at least as powerful as a Pentium 233. |
That's not true, especially in 16-bit code.
quote:
An Athlon beats any Pentium on a clock-by-clock basis. I then highly doubt that a 386 is able to do more per clock than an Athlon. |
Actually, there's always been the trend of doing less per clock with each new core design. The 386's was something like 3-4 stages. Pentium III/Athlon's 10, Pentium 4's 20, and Hammer is supposed to be 12. More stages mean less gets done per clock, but the clock speed increases also.
quote:
You are full of insincerity, and this is a shining example. We were talking about performance, right ? And performances-speaking, putting DDR on a P4 is suicide. I can put some SDRAM PC66 on an Athlon, it will work too. But I won't make any performance comparison with another chip in this situation. |
What the hell?
Did you even LOOK at the benchmarks I conveniently linked for you?! DDR333 is on par with PC800 RDRAM, sometimes even outpacing it! Read the benchmarks for yourself, I linked them right there for you.
No wonder we're having trouble here, you fail to acknowledge basic points even when confronted with evidence...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
Nonsense, absolute nonsense.
Adding x86-64 support is trivial. |
Merely upgrading all the x86 instruction set to work with 64-bit operands is a major undertaking, considering all the registers ( whether you see them on the outside or not), ALUs, floating point units, the various queues, etc. have to be doubled in size. Then all the microcodes have to be reworked to allow for 64-bit operations.
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
It adds about 2-3%% to diespace |
Not even close.
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
and only certain parts of the processor actually need to be upgraded (because of SSE2, much of the parts already work at 64-bit precision). |
Even when that's true, there is still significant work to be done.
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
You incorrectly assume it's hard to add x86-64. You don't think Intel could add x86-64 in the 1.5-2 years they've been working on the chip? Give me a break... |
If they have something waiting in the wings, or even a project that is making significant headways, we'd be gettin some clear and significant details on the chip. We have been getting a lot of details on the Itanic and it's not even done.
I don't think it is Intel's way to surprise the market with a finished product.
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
Sandbag-esque desklamps (I don't care what monolith says) with about a 15 degree swivell radius on the arm? It blows Apple's designs away. |
You do have some, um, interesting views on what good designs are.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Merely upgrading all the x86 instruction set to work with 64-bit operands is a major undertaking, considering all the registers ( whether you see them on the outside or not), ALUs, floating point units, the various queues, etc. have to be doubled in size. Then all the microcodes have to be reworked to allow for 64-bit operations. |
Not all x86 instructions are being reworked. Only certain instructions need to be added for integer use. FPU is already at 80-bit (64-bit in SSE2).
Why would the FPUs need to be doubled in size if they're already working at 80-bit?
64-bit just changes the memory addressing space and the integer precision.
Well, ClawHammer has an integrated memory controller, SSE2, as well as x86-64. The 0.09 micron Clawhammer is going to be 64mm2, while the 0.09 micron Athlon (Thoroughbred) is 50mm2. So how is that not even close?
It appears you're thinking x86-64 is far more complicated than it actually is.
quote:
If they have something waiting in the wings, or even a project that is making significant headways, we'd be gettin some clear and significant details on the chip. We have been getting a lot of details on the Itanic and it's not even done.
I don't think it is Intel's way to surprise the market with a finished product. |
It's all about politics. Intel doesn't want to admit to having an x86-64 chip until it sees if IA-64 is already dead in the water for desktop or not. There is zero incentive for them to announce it officially with details. It makes perfect sense for them to build Prescott with x86-64 and then just enable them if needed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
IA-64 is far, far more than a simple 64-bit processor. It is radically different than x86-64. |
The thing is it is too radical. It relies on ubercompilers to perform all the magic, and they are nowhere to be seen. Not even Intel has one that's close. Of all people, they should be the one that should be making tools that make their hardware actually shine.
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
x86-64 is s cheap kludge to add 64-bit registers to x86 and corresponding instructions. That is insanely easy to do. |
Not so. See my previous post.
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
The reason why Intel didn't want to go there is because most developers want x86 dead. |
Most developers don't actually care because they don't need to actually deal with the hardware. System programmers may hate it, but they don't even form the majority.
More importantly, there's too much capital invested in i86 for such a clean break. Even Apple had a hard time shifting from Motorola 680x0 to PowerPC, even though they had a much smaller market and they had control over both hardware and system software.
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
It's old, it's obsolete, it's kludgey, it's got a stack-based FPU which is simply horrible to work with, it spends about 30% of its clocktime overcoming inherent shortcomings of x86. |
Again, all this depends on how good the compiler is. If the best of the compilers can't take advantage of the hardware features - there are advantages to stack machines - there is no way that any compiler is going to start scratching the VLIW stuff.
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
IA-64 was a radically new instruction set and architecture based upon 20 years of University research. |
Here's an interesting article for you
Also consider that HP, the original developer of IA-64, dropped the project several years ago. This is a clear indication that HP didn't think the project is viable.
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
Saying that AMD was able to build a 64-bit processor in far less time than Intel is an absolute joke, you're implying that AMD is more skilled than Intel. |
Maybe not more skilled, just more sensible
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
It's like this: If you take someone else's 30-page essay and add on 1 paragraph to it and change some spelling, you can do it far faster than the kid who had to research, think about, and then write his own 30-page essay from scratch. |
That's a bad analogy. Adding 64-bit extensions is a significant undertaking.
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
The 2.53GHz is the undisputed speed king. |
Speed <> performance. The P4 has a pathetically low IPC.
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
That doesn't matter, AMD intentionally made the PR ratings conservative so people like you can say "Hey! Match at the PR ratings the Athlon is faster! GO AMD! WOO!". |
If they can afford to underrate their chips, more power to them, I say 
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
The 2.53GHz P4, even with PC800 RDRAM (Performance hits 5-10% higher with PC1066), is the undisputed speed king. |
Note that DDR400 blows PC1066 away.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The thing is it is too radical. It relies on ubercompilers to perform all the magic, and they are nowhere to be seen. Not even Intel has one that's close. Of all people, they should be the one that should be making tools that make their hardware actually shine. |
That's exactly right -- it takes years to get good compilers for an instruction set. That's why Itanium was in extremely limited release, and McKinley will also. Itanium 3 will be the big one.
quote:
More importantly, there's too much capital invested in i86 for such a clean break. Even Apple had a hard time shifting from Motorola 680x0 to PowerPC, even though they had a much smaller market and they had control over both hardware and system software. |
Intel just needs to invest in a larger x86-64 emulation unit in the IA-64. Hell, by 2004-2005 when they bring it to the desktop they could imbed an IA-32 chip inside (they should be around 30mm^2 by then )
quote:
Also consider that HP, the original developer of IA-64, dropped the project several years ago. This is a clear indication that HP didn't think the project is viable. |
This is actually not totally true.
Or if it is, why the hell does HP have a website they keep updating devoted to IA-64?
http://www.hp.com/products1/itanium/
quote:
That's a bad analogy. Adding 64-bit extensions is a significant undertaking. |
Can you actually provide some links for that?
Literally everything I've read about it said it's pretty trivial. Only in this case they're increasing the amount of registers which is basically the hardest part, but still very simple.
quote:
Speed <> performance. The P4 has a pathetically low IPC. |
Oh give me a break, UR. I wasn't saying the MHz was the only determinant of performance. I'm saying the 2.53GHz model of the P4 is currently the fastest desktop processor out there. Knock it off with the strawmen.
quote:
If they can afford to underrate their chips, more power to them, I say |
They underrate because it makes them look cooler in their home market: The Enthusiasts. I think they also anticipated P4 + PC1066 performance.
quote:
Note that DDR400 blows PC1066 away. |
How do you figure?
All of the benchmarks I've seen show DDR400 outpacing PC800 RDRAM, but PC1066 and PC1200 RDRAM were fastest. See this: http://www.tomshardware.com/mainboa...srambus-06.html
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-05-2002 23:07
|