quote: Commercial success is hardly proof of inherent quality or technological superiority
quote: In terms of performance it certainly didn't take AMD long to surpass Netburst (Netburst was even slower than the PIII, at first, and the K7 was already faster than the PIII). The only thing that gave Netburst an advantage over the K7 (in a very restricted range of applications) was SSE2.
quote: Intel sold more chips because they have better marketing
quote: But the point is that Intel would have sold just as many units (probably more) if they'd gone with an evolutionary, power-efficient design based on the PIII.
quote: It's so much simpler to convince people that a chip is faster when it has a big number after the name.
quote: And I said "makes you wonder who lost to Netburst" (meaning the Pentium-M, obviously, which got pushed to the background).
quote: Netburst the most successful CPU generation in Intel's history? If you think that, then (to quote your own post) "You obviously no nothing about business".
quote: You took that as an opportunity to praise the decision to push Netburst as a brilliant move on Intel's part, when it was precisely that move that let AMD catch up (and surpass) Intel in terms of performance and technology
quote: get a significant chunk of the lucrative server and supercomputing markets.
quote: You seem to think Intel's success is measured by how many processors they sell in abstract. It's not. It's measured by how many processors they sell relative to their competitors.
quote: Justin, not one point of your reply contradicted any part of mine. I'm not quite sure why you had to justify something. P4 (Netburst) is a resounding success by ANY metric you use to define it.
quote: In a business, commercial success is the only thing that matters. AMD would have killed for that level of success, Why don't you ask 3DFx what its like to have technological superiority?
quote: I suggest you go back and look at benchmarks again. P4 was never slower than P3, maybe IPC, but who cares, the MHz advantage made up for it and then some. All P4's (from Willamette up) competed very favorably to AMD's current offerings. Some wins, some losses for both camps, but overall, until the Athlon64 went up against Prescott, the P4 was very competitive. Lest you not forget the early Athlons that were space heaters without thermal diodes. How many of those chips burned up. Such short memories we have. SSE2 did help intel in some benchmarks, but in others without SSE optimizations, the clockspeed advantage of the P4 gave it the win. Even prescott won a few benchmarks (SSE assisted) against the latest Athlon64's. If you ran that particular application (mostly media encoding) would you still think the design was "inferior"?
quote: Your point? Sounds like going the MHz route was the right decision then.
quote: Speculation??? In the current climate of MHz wars, that could have been "chink-in-the-armour" that AMD was looking for. AMD chose a complete redesign because they HAD to, not because they are some great saviour helping us from evil, but because that was necessary to compete. And it was a very smart move on AMD's part.
quote: Yep, and once again, your point is???? Wasn't that the reason for the AMD rating.
quote: I'm for competition, and don't have allegiance to either brand. But I don't like mis-information. You obviously no nothing about business, these processor roadmaps are developed years in advance. It takes a lot of time for developement. Sucess in business is also about hitting the market at the right time with the right product. Sometimes companies get it right, other times they don't.
quote: Tell you what, you keep your head in the sand and blindly buy AMD. I'll look at the facts and make the best processor choice from the models that are available.
quote: and because you seems to like the quotes I thought I might as well give it a try also.
quote: Yes the Pentium 4/D/Netburst was a success in terms of sales, and market penetration, but it was hardly the market leader in terms of performance once the K8 burst onto the scene,
quote: The Tualatin Pentium 3 was far more powerful than the Pentium 4 in most situations, that was with the willamate, it was not till about the 1.7-1.8ghz Pentium 4 Willamate' that the Pentium 4 could finally beat the Tualatin 512k 1.4ghz chip.
quote: Depends which was you look at it, if you are a hardcore gamer, then Intel's Decision was not the best.
quote: Yes but PC manufacturers still listed the actual "Ghz" of the processor, just like with the Core 2 series, I know someone that thought his Pentium 4 3.2ghz was faster than a Core 2 Duo, because it had a higher clockspeed.
quote: But comon, everyone thats a Computer Enthusiast knows that the Pentium 4 sucked big time.
quote: And you can keep buying the Intel processors (Even though they are great, as is AMD's Athlon 64 X2 because of its price).
quote: Technical leadership does not ensure success of a product. There are many instances where a superior design has lost to an inferior one, due to all kinds of market influences. We could go on for hours here talking about failed products that were really good. 3DFx had a line of Voodoo cards (5500 & 6500 IRC) that were very fast but never released. NVidia was embroiled in a lawsuit with 3DFx at the time and it was alleged that NVidia stole the tech. In the end, NVidia purchased the assets of 3DFx and the lawsuit was gone. The 5500 showed real promise as the fastest card against the RivaTNT. LOL, your comparing them to the Geforce2 and Geforce 3, that hadn't been released until a year after 3DFx closed shop!
quote: Tualatin was a great chip, but check your timeline. Tualatin never got to 1.4GHz during Willamette, so compare apples to apples (or in this case Tualatin to Northwood).
quote: This is what I've been rallying against the whole time. The pentium 4 did not "suck". Northwood was a great core, Intel just milked it too long.
quote: (Netburst was even slower than the PIII, at first, and the K7 was already faster than the PIII)
quote: AMD only has one design team. Don't quote me on that though.
quote: Nothing against Intel, but I'm sure this sort of development schedule costs billions
quote: but the huge increase of "consumer-level" CPU power has led to progressively sloppier and less optimized code
quote: But I will still disagree. 90% of the so called programmers out there are utter and complete hacks. Their code is absolute complete slop. It's covered up by the amount of machine power we have today.
quote: I don't see why a company would stop innovating just because there's a lack of competition.
quote: Now, I will give you that we wouldn't advance as quickly, but we would still advance.
quote: In electronics, tape-out is the name of the final stage of the design of an integrated circuit such as a microprocessor, the point at which the description of a circuit is sent for manufacture. A modern IC has to go through a long and complex design process before it is ready for tape-out. Many of the steps along the way utilize software tools collectively known as electronic design automation. Tape-out is usually a cause for celebration by everyone who worked on the project, followed by eager anticipation of an actual product returning from the manufacturing facility.
quote: "We wanted to build the highest performance per core that could be used in notebooks all the way to high end servers," stated Hinton.
quote: Gosh, that sounds a lot like what that other CPU company has been doing for the past four years!
quote: Intel's largest architecture overhaul in decades is less than a year away
quote: Intel's Paul Otellini holding up a "Nehale" wafer