AMD is losing the battle?

You have to remember that toms is very biased. Also they are comparing a DDR2 Intel setup to a DDR1 AMD setup.
 
how ya figure AMD is losing?

from intel-loving tom himself
In the majority of benchmark results, the P4 EE lags behind the Athlon 64 FX even with FSB1066. The extra 66 MHz of speed and the boosted Front Side Bus on their own are not enough to create a significant enhancement compared to the 3.4 GHz model with FSB800. The reason is the three-stage cache architecture of the Pentium 4 EE, which already produces more performance compared to the standard Pentium 4.
Click to expand...

AMD's offerings from 1 year ago beat Intels "its out now but you can't actually buy it offers"

Intel is currently in a catchup phase...
 
1) It's not just the 1066MHz FSB, the CPU also has 2MB of L2 cache
2) It uses dual channel DDR2-533 (8.5GB/s memory bandwidth) and the 1066MHz FSB can finally take advantage of it
3) If you look at ALL the benchmarks, the FX-53 is doing pretty well against it even with slower memory and 1/2 the L2 cache

:rolleyes: enough with the "bias", k1114. The benchmarks look pretty objective.
 
TH is very biased toward intel, I recall a review where he compared a OC'ed P4EE ( like 4 GHZ ) to a stock 64bit athlon ( 3200 I think ). It seems silly to me that he wouldn't OC the athlon to a similar speed (based on rating) before comparing it to the heavily OC'ed P4.
 
havent you guys noticed the increase in Intel ads on TV. they are trying to push the P4's and the "new" celerons :rolleyes: , and you will pay for every ad they use in the price. they have to push them more now that AMD has come even with them in performance, if not passed them. everyone knows that , even Intel. hence the return of the Blue guys!!! :p
 
I haven't actually read the article yet, but I'm sure the FX 55 which is soon to be released should level the playing field assuming the 1066FSB chips are beating the ageing FX53

Edit.

Upon reading that article, I was a bit surprised to see they were only testing with Quake 3, which is a heavily intel favoured test anyway, I'll wait for a more complete report.
 
MetalStorm said:
Upon reading that article, I was a bit surprised to see they were only testing with Quake 3, which is a heavily intel favoured test anyway, I'll wait for a more complete report.
Click to expand...
They didn't only test with Quake 3. There are several pages of benchmarks.
 
not to mention the fx-55 is going to become the top amd proc soon...

and from what i noticed most of the time when the amd won it won by a considerable margin compared to the intel when it win its usually by slim margins. plus how much cheaper is the amd $300 or so
 
Ok, my mistake but can you guys find a website where the specific place or person who benches the two dont have a favor on one of either the companys such as tom with his intel...
 
What I don't understand, is how Tom can show benchmarks that are completely the opposite of every other hardware site.

1066FSB aside, he shows the FX-53 on the K8T800 non pro chipset for one.

As an example, he shows the P4 3.4EE (800FSB) beating the FX-53 in Doom III at 1280x1024.

Yet in the Ultimate Doom3 guide on Hardocp.com they show the FX-53 as the ultimate CPU for Doom III and AMD Athlon 64 in general as the prefered CPU.

Granted he saves face at the end of the article, saying not much has changed with this new transion to 1066, but I just don't understand why for the most part in VideoCard/CPU reviews he always seems slanted.

I still read his stuff everyday, but I have learned to take some of his stuff with a grain of salt.
 
There have been many adjectives used to describe Tom and his site over many years; “Objective” has never been one of those words. :rolleyes:
 
I saw the thread title and god kind of worried but once I saw "tomshardware" in the URL I sort of laughed to myself. :p
 
An extra squeeze here and there is all nice, but nothing will get Intel their crown back. Short of a new architecture. Scaling for Netburst is almost dead. Moving to 90nm didn't help matters much, and moving to 65nm will produce an even lesser actual performance gain, if we consider the diminishing returns.

While AMD has a shiny new architecture, which is deadly effecient, even at low frequencies. IMO, they could have reached 3GHz on 130nm; of course it would almost have to be a different quality 130nm manufacturing process. There are other tricks in the fab to allow for more frequency gain, such as doping the gates with a better conductor, or using a different semiconductor (as opposed to silicon oxide, silicon nitrate.. or something). All of these would, of course, make mass-producing more expensive, and the end product, also more expensive.
 
MrWoot said:
AMD beats Intel in graphics, no contest.
Click to expand...
And nVida+ATi combined. They ship the most graphic chipsets.

Edit: OH WTF. I thought it was the other way around, Intel beats AMD in graphics. That doesn't even make sense, AMD doesn't even make a graphic chipset.
Jerrad said:
What I don't understand, is how Tom can show benchmarks that are completely the opposite of every other hardware site.

1066FSB aside, he shows the FX-53 on the K8T800 non pro chipset for one.

As an example, he shows the P4 3.4EE (800FSB) beating the FX-53 in Doom III at 1280x1024.

Yet in the Ultimate Doom3 guide on Hardocp.com they show the FX-53 as the ultimate CPU for Doom III and AMD Athlon 64 in general as the prefered CPU.

Granted he saves face at the end of the article, saying not much has changed with this new transion to 1066, but I just don't understand why for the most part in VideoCard/CPU reviews he always seems slanted.

I still read his stuff everyday, but I have learned to take some of his stuff with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...
It's "worth a grain of salt" Hum, yeah, okay you eat a grain of salt every time you read a TH article. That's meh.
 
jackbauer said:
havent you guys noticed the increase in Intel ads on TV. they are trying to push the P4's and the "new" celerons :rolleyes: , and you will pay for every ad they use in the price. they have to push them more now that AMD has come even with them in performance, if not passed them. everyone knows that , even Intel. hence the return of the Blue guys!!! :p
Click to expand...
It seemed to me most of the advertising was for Centrino, which has been very successful. Not only commercially but also as being the best mobile platform IMO (over AMD, Apple, etc).

Anyway, Toms is a terrible site with a strong skew the Intel way. I wouldn't listen to him and I'd take his charts with a grain of salt. Although if the graphs favor AMD that's impressive for TH.
 
For AMD this quarter marked with crazy marketing strategy. They released a bunch of different amd64 cpus. Most of us who want to upgrade system have to be really careful choosing which chip to buy or we ended up with a wrong chip for the wrong socket (939 or 754).Needless to say, AMD competition this quarter is not coming from Intel, but from within AMD itself. They have 754 and 939 and FX/clawhammer/winchester/newcastle competing for the same market and the end result usually is price going down. It is good for us and not good for AMD quarterly report. Hey INTEL.......smile....
 
centvalny said:
For AMD this quarter marked with crazy marketing strategy. They released a bunch of different amd64 cpus. Most of us who want to upgrade system have to be really careful choosing which chip to buy or we ended up with a wrong chip for the wrong socket (939 or 754).Needless to say, AMD competition this quarter is not coming from Intel, but from within AMD itself. They have 754 and 939 and FX/clawhammer/winchester/newcastle competing for the same market and the end result usually is price going down. It is good for us and not good for AMD quarterly report. Hey INTEL.......smile....
Click to expand...

sounds like something that lame Ed Stroligo would say...
 
needmorecarnitine said:
sounds like something that lame Ed Stroligo would say...
Click to expand...

Are you talking about what I said? Hey man, I read articles of Tomshardware more than I can count and since the geforce 3`s came out...But I was just under the impression that we Amd lovers are number 2 in processor power wise...
 
Yes we are number 2 in CPUs "Power-wise" but then we are not talking calculating power we are talkin Effect (watts) :D
 
funny, when i read the thread title i was going like "what?!?", because for the first time... *ever*, really, i have had the feeling for quite some time now that intel was the one to react to AMDs moves: opteron setups long beat their Xeons counterparts in their arena until very recently intel did finally deliver something equal, the a64 line seems to have gathered momentum faster than prescott, small stuff like the NX-bit, 64-bit (and if only for marketing purposes), dual-core presentations of working silicon etc. etc. - most stuff really except for mobile computing.
even now AMD is just a week or so away with their launch of the FX-55/A64 4000+ respectively. i don't know, and i have to admit it's more a 'subjective feel' to it than a thorough market analysis, but judgeing by that i have the feeling intel played catchup in lots of areas it dominated before rather than 'amd loosing the battle' (whatever that is BTW with two relatively equal products) - and, if it is some sort of indicator for that feel type of thing, more ppl ask me to put together a64 machines than intel ones recently, whereas two years ago or so it was the vast minority.

so to sum it all up: i think both companies have great, competitive products on the market ATM, with buying decisions sensible only by looking at what you actually do. grand, if you ask me, and noone is 'loosing the battle' or anything IMHO.
 
Steel Chicken said:
how ya figure AMD is losing?

from intel-loving tom himself :

In the majority of benchmark results, the P4 EE lags behind the Athlon 64 FX even with FSB1066. The extra 66 MHz of speed and the boosted Front Side Bus on their own are not enough to create a significant enhancement compared to the 3.4 GHz model with FSB800. The reason is the three-stage cache architecture of the Pentium 4 EE, which already produces more performance compared to the standard Pentium 4.
Click to expand...

AMD's offerings from 1 year ago beat Intels "its out now but you can't actually buy it offers"

Intel is currently in a catchup phase...
Click to expand...

Notice how:

In the majority of benchmark results, the P4 EE lags behind the Athlon 64 FX even with FSB1066. The extra 66 MHz of speed and the boosted Front Side Bus on their own are not enough to create a significant enhancement compared to the 3.4 GHz model with FSB800. The reason is the three-stage cache architecture of the Pentium 4 EE, which already produces more performance compared to the standard Pentium 4.
Click to expand...

Has been changed into:

In the majority of benchmark results, the P4EE is not able to clearly outperform AMD's Athlon 64 FX-55. The extra 66 MHz of speed and the boosted Front Side Bus on their own are not enough to create a significant enhancement compared to the 3.4 GHz model with FSB800. The reason is the three-stage cache architecture of the Pentium 4 EE, which already produces more performance compared to the standard Pentium 4.
Click to expand...

What's going on here?
 
Xspringe said:
What's going on here?
Click to expand...

toms' :rolleyes:

tomorrow it's gonna be like this

"In the majority of benchmark results, the P4EE is able to clearly outperform AMD's Athlon 64 FX-55. The extra 66 MHz of speed and the boosted Front Side Bus on their own are enough to create a significant enhancement compared to the 3.4 GHz model with FSB800. The reason is the three-stage cache architecture of the Pentium 4 EE, which already produces more performance compared to the standard Pentium 4. However, we ourselves are not yet sure and will read forums around the web, so check back for our continuously changeing conclusion tomorrow."
Click to expand...
 
Wizzackrs post would have been hillarious :D if it wasn't for one tiny little thing. It' might acctually come true :( .

Sadly enough (Been reeding toms for a loong time) Toms have deterioated slowly but steadily over the last 5 years or so. It has gone from being THE hardware site to beeing a site I read to get an idea of whats happening as any else but where I dont believe anything until its been confirmed by at least 2-3 other reputable sites.

However the statment on the graphics cards (if ofcourse it's not a bias ploy as well) is acctually the best Ive seen TH do for the readers the last 1-2 years so even TH might deserve some credit now and then (allthough pretty seldom I must admit).
 
Frallan said:
However the statment on the graphics cards (if ofcourse it's not a bias ploy as well) is acctually the best Ive seen TH do for the readers the last 1-2 years so even TH might deserve some credit now and then (allthough pretty seldom I must admit).
Click to expand...

i know, i was just making fun of - yet another - sad thing to hear from toms' and i didn't want to start the usual tom-bashing. i do read the articles from time to time, and albeit i think there are WAY better sites now i do find some things ok (VGA charts for example).

most of the time i get too annoyed, though, and all in all it just ain't enough anymore to have been one of the first sites - there is way to competent competition.
 
Oh, Intel is going to have fun just trying to match the 4000+. They still haven't managed to match the 3800+ :D.
 
"The whole industry is on the edge of its seat waiting for several new products from the House of Intel."

I'm sorry, but if that doesn't come accross as a biased sounding statement, i don't know what does. Everybody i know who is into computers and cares at all about whats coming out in the future is all stoked about 9nm athlon64's. I don't know anybody who overclocks who would actually consider getting the NEWEST p4 setup. I knew Tom was a crusty sour-krauter when he dissed steve for posting news about 9/11 on his page. I was one the freaks of nature who actually heard about that from the [H] first.
 
7718 said:
"The whole industry is on the edge of its seat waiting for several new products from the House of Intel."

I'm sorry, but if that doesn't come accross as a biased sounding statement, i don't know what does. Everybody i know who is into computers and cares at all about whats coming out in the future is all stoked about 9nm athlon64's.
Click to expand...
Don't forget the dual core Opterons. :D
 
needmorecarnitine said:
sounds like something that lame Ed Stroligo would say...
Click to expand...

lol... did look damn near copy pasted. Not trying to offend the man that wrote it but I know I was going to ask if Ed had registered on the H forums. :p

Oh and guys please dont do the "but the intel has DDRII" or similar like look at the clocks they need, look at all the cache it has... No one gives a crap about excuses, only power. I always see that and it's well.... lame and not really significant.
 
why dont toms hard ware do a benchmark match
when the new DDR 2 AMD MOBOS COME OUT to make it even
Then AMD will kick butt.
this bench mark test dont make any points.
because there is no ddr 2 amd mobos yet. i could be mistaken
so tom is bisaed. sorry about the rambleing lol
it just make me mad to see a web site ass intels butt
 
tazz said:
why dont toms hard ware do a benchmark match
when the new DDR 2 AMD MOBOS COME OUT to make it even
Click to expand...
That's stupid, it's like saying why doesn't Tom's wait til Intel has a 64-Bit CPU. :rolleyes: If they can't compete and win with new, "advance" technology then theres no point in going Intel. It's all about power, plain and simple.
 
why does everyone have a problem with ed? Eds pretty kewl in my opinion, i love his editorials. i think he probably is more active in the overclockers forums though. Oh and a dual core socket939 cpu would rock my socks off. I can't wait to overclock that!
 
tazz said:
when the new DDR 2 AMD MOBOS COME OUT to make it even
Then AMD will kick butt.
Click to expand...

don't get me wrong, i love amd, but the ddr2 boards aren't gonna help the a64's architecture at all for a while. (not until the absolute latency gets reduced at least)
a64 + low latency = good
ddr2 = high latency
therefore
a64 + ddr2 = bad
 
This article doesnt substantiate much. Blah blash blah. DDR2 is better but costs more and has a higher latency. Tom jumps on prelim results like flies on shiat.
 
7718 said:
why does everyone have a problem with ed?
Click to expand...

I don't know about everyone but I can tell you why I have a problem with him. He writes stupid articles. Half of them are about how even though he admits that AMD is doing well, they are one or two quarters away from screwing themselves over.
 
well ya know i read some article saying that intel isnt going to release 64 bit processors for some time because they are still releasing kick ass processors now any ways...I wish I could find the article for you guys, but I looked all day for it and couldnt find it... :rolleyes: :mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top