... continued
Quote:
|
OK, Praetor, now how precisely can you call this bullshit? Obviously something's amiss, because I couldn't find one shred of credible information that even remotely refuted my statement. In fact, it would seem that there is an overwhelming tendency to agree with my statements. By all means, you may ask for my sources of information, but before you call my words "crap" and/or "BS," at least confirm that they are "crap," and/or "BS."
|
Well the simple fact that you seem to have confused the meaning of "operation" gives things away. Furthermore, just because you found some links here and there (mostly forum ones it seems) that corroberate doesnt mean much when you dont apply the facts being conveyed with a logical sense of reasoning. Sure the AthlonXPs can have 3 FP units ... I didnt even bother verifying that that (although didnt need to either) .... but just because they have three such units does not mean they are better processors .... and on the converse, just because intel doesnt have 3 such units does not make it a better processor. Since Ive dealt with ASM and I know for damn sure opcodes dont execute in fractions of a cycle I countered by asking for specific opcodes that may execute in 1/6 or 1/9 of a cycle (since, not being an ASM guru I dont know the entire opcode layouts off the top of my head). That was an opportunity to solidify your case. I see no opcodes.
Regarding the "applying the facts" comment, sure AMD can have 9 "whatever" per cycle and Intel only have 6 "whatevers" per cycle, but two things should come to mind:
1. Why the hell are all these processors so slow??? Sure we know its CISC technology so yer looking at a 300% bloat in opcode length but at say 18billion opcodes/sec -- it shouldnt matter
2. The fact that AMD has more "whatever" does not mean it is a better processor. And never will. The fact that Intels have fewer does not mean it is a worse processor and never will.
I think an overwhelming majority of informed users will concur that to say "AMD makes the best processors ever and all Intel Processors suck" (even if we limit the scope to current and last-gen processors) is an excessively broad and closeminded view. There is a reason why Intel and AMD exist and why there are so many threads on the internet about "Intel or AMD" -- thats because its not hands down clear.
----
Quote:
|
Yeah, kinda embarrassed about that, I really need to pay attention to both sides of the field there... anyway, you must also keep in mind that Intel owns a very large percentage of the commercial processor market, and it would be very advantageous for Microsoft to initially release x64 for Intel's 64-bit processors versus AMD's 64-bit processors.
|
1. Windows XP x64 is not [originally] for Intel systems but rather for AMD's K8 lineup. I think you have Windows XP x64 and Windows XP 64bit Edition mixed up?
2. The fact that Intel has the lions share of the consumer market was not why Microsoft released Windows XP 64bit edition -- t'is cuz Intel had their 64bit stuff up and running a lot sooner than AMD
----
Oh and on a last note:
Quote:
|
Geforce FX 5700LE @ stock 250/500 core/memory with 256-bit memory interface, **drool**, ever so unneccesary...
|
That videocard doesnt have a 256bit memory interface.