Largest Performance Gain

[Nagasama]

me too me toooooo oh great swami fortune cookie!

 

[HAVOC]

Apokalipse, you said, "Penryn hasn't got a lot of change, apart from a die shrink? uh yes it does."

A very generalized statement to make, then once I provided a hand full of changes, then you decide to go off on one of your verbose technobabble ramblings with

answer

,

answer

... etc....

If you have studied a lot about CPU architecture, you'll know why this isn't really anything revolutionary. CPU's get a lot more complex on the inside; but in this revision, not much of the actual core architecture has changed

I don't need to know a lot about CPU architecture to be able to read a handful of articles that explain 5 to 10 changes of a processor from current processors to know that 5 to 10 changes are much more then a die shrink.

I'm not here to argue AMD vs INTEL. I have both, use both and support both. I'm not a fanboy either way. But, you made a bogus statement and left it way to open ended and then did one of your "insanely useless text happy come backs".

Typicial

 

[veg1992]

wow have he flooded K M A N' s question.... i'm gonna google penyrn vs k10

 

[HAVOC]

you know, when it really comes down to it, K10 vs. Penryn... does it really matter? I mean regardless if penryn is not a bottom-up new architecture and the new K10's are it doesn't really matter. (BTW the Penryns are a new Microarchitecture) but anyway...

What really matters is PRICE/PERFORMANCE. That's what really matters. And it's going to be extremely hard for AMD to stay competitive with Intel Price wise. Intel is in such a great position to price drop the living crap out of AMD regardless of what CPU has better performance. Even if the K10's show higher performance, Intel will be able to price drop their CPU's and make up the ground in price where they lose in performance.

And you know as well as I do that most system builders look for PRICE/PERFORMANCE as their number one CPU deciding factor. Benchmarks don't mean squat when you have to pay an extra $100 per processor for a few extra 100 bench points.

 

[Apokalipse]

Apokalipse, you said, "Penryn hasn't got a lot of change, apart from a die shrink? uh yes it does."

A very generalized statement to make, then once I provided a hand full of changes, then you decide to go off on one of your verbose technobabble ramblings with , ... etc....

Dismissal of my arguments with "verbose technobabble ramblings" doesn't make them invalid.
(note, I use the literal definition of argument. Not just two or more people opposing each other)

I'm sorry if you haven't read as much as I have about the architectures of CPU's. The fact is, Penryn isn't revolutionary. Don't believe me? fine.
I did back up my statement, though. I hope you have actually read what I wrote.

If you have studied a lot about CPU architecture, you'll know why this isn't really anything revolutionary. CPU's get a lot more complex on the inside; but in this revision, not much of the actual core architecture has changed

I don't need to know a lot about CPU architecture to be able to read a handful of articles that explain 5 to 10 changes of a processor from current processors to know that 5 to 10 changes are much more then a die shrink.

the number of changes here is not really relevant. What is relevant is what those changes are.

I'm not here to argue AMD vs INTEL.

Neither am I.

I have both, use both and support both. I'm not a fanboy either way.

I never claimed you were. In fact, I'm not hellbent on absolutely going AMD. I do actually like the Core 2's architecture. I'm only assessing both architectures based on what I've read about them.

But, you made a bogus statement and left it way to open ended and then did one of your "insanely useless text happy come backs".

You know what?
snarf it.
I suspect you have not actually read my "insanely useless text happy come back".

 

[HAVOC]

You know what?
snarf it.
I suspect you have not actually read my "insanely useless text happy come back".

Actually yes I have.

Here's what you are saying.

Intel's Penryn's don't impress you with all of your godly knowledge of Central Processing Units. The AMD K10's are so uber radical that you are creaming in your jeans over them and the Penryn's pale in comparison.

That still doesn't change the fact that you said, "Nothing more then a die shrink." Which was an attempt to play down Intel's improvements and enhancements to their 45nm processors compared to the K10's.

Anyway Apok, it's not going to matter how revolutionary the K10's will be, Intel will still sell more processors and lead the market in CPU's.

So enjoy the revolution.

 

[Apokalipse]

Actually yes I have.

Of course, I can't really tell if you're just saying that, but I'll take your word for it. Mainly because I don't want to play a contradiction game.

Intel's Penryn's don't impress you with all of your godly knowledge of Central Processing Units. The AMD K10's are so uber radical that you are creaming in your jeans over them and the Penryn's pale in comparison.

Talk about extreme exaggeration.

 

[Oreo]

peoples... Unless you are REALLY sad you always buy the best processor for the money right ? so why does it even matter.

Neither companies are dumb asses, therefor they will both, once in a while release a KILLER cpu, Intels case the C2D, AMD's are the high end signle core athlons (for the average person i.e. none of us) there great, extremely cheep and handle normal applications with a breeze. Hence there still popular, (atleast they were untul intels price cut, now the E6300 is pwning)

My point is in the neer futue it is likely (AMD being AMD), they'll release a fantasticly fast CPU and rock bottom prices, so at that time AMD will be 'winning' if you so wish to call it that.

The cycle will continue forever, and so will this argument. You can raise as many points as you want about how fantastic processors like the E6400 are... but i can bet i could find a cituation were a X2 3800 would be better, because of AMD's totally different architecture to Intels, there bound to be better at other thinsg than others.

Thats all ive got to say, until someone says AMD Pwnzorz, Vice Verasa.

 

[veg1992]

peoples... Unless you are REALLY sad you always buy the best processor for the money right ? so why does it even matter.

Neither companies are dumb asses, therefor they will both, once in a while release a KILLER cpu, Intels case the C2D, AMD's are the high end signle core athlons (for the average person i.e. none of us) there great, extremely cheep and handle normal applications with a breeze. Hence there still popular, (atleast they were untul intels price cut, now the E6300 is pwning)

My point is in the neer futue it is likely (AMD being AMD), they'll release a fantasticly fast CPU and rock bottom prices, so at that time AMD will be 'winning' if you so wish to call it that.

The cycle will continue forever, and so will this argument. You can raise as many points as you want about how fantastic processors like the E6400 are... but i can bet i could find a cituation were a X2 3800 would be better, because of AMD's totally different architecture to Intels, there bound to be better at other thinsg than others.

Thats all ive got to say, until someone says AMD Pwnzorz, Vice Verasa.

thank you.. who cares which is better... choose the one that u can best afford

 

[Oreo]

thank you.. who cares which is better... choose the one that u can best afford

Its good to know someone supports my feelings