Doctors With Borders: How the U.S. Shuts Out Foreign Physicians - The AtlanticAMD price cuts follow Intel’s
NEWSLETTER
Subscribing to a newsletter indicates your consent to our
The point is that Apple users have got a computer that runs the best OS and the best software in the industry and which is comparably fast to currently produced computers.
Only a nerd would care about what numbers are on his computer.
Get over the numbers, and get a life.
AMD slut. – by Macman
Totally right on! (3:03am EST Sat Jun 01 2002)This is what I've been saying for years!
It matter what you can DO with your computer and the software.
Can you create cool designs, picutres, movies, music, etc?
Without getting a Ph.D. in the OS?
Can the OS deliver a incredibly beautiful interface and handle operations with style?
Can it operate like a hardcore unix, yet be as friendly to people who aren't unix hacks?
Its apple all the way baby…
Maybe nerds who like AMD-Intel would be included in real people's conversations if they'd stop with this “I got a 233 FSB on Quad 64-bit AMD Crapstar chips with 356 L3 Burst pipeline cache.”
Who really cares?
Nerds. – by Dylan
Clarification (3:27am EST Sat Jun 01 2002)“Apple users definitely can choose what video card they want, and can upgrade almost anything.”
I agree with everything except this statement about Apples made above.
I think you should clarify this statement.
Towers can be upgraded mostly, not the Apple consumer computers.
But, the point is still valid.
I mean, you don't buy a computer so that you can upgrade it.
That's not the point of owning a computer, to the dismay of these geeky computer nerds.
You own a computer to produce works of art, to conduct business, to learn, and to share information with the world.
Now, what kind of processor/ram/etc it has is a moot point as long as it is relatively fast for your needs.
And it is clear that Apple has blazed a trail that others clearly cannot.
– by MacJedi
nataku that overpriced under performing P4 you wasted your money on (10:23am EST Sat Jun 01 2002)won't get any faster no matter how many personal insults and FUD you can muster.
Baco's Sysmark was clearly proven to be an Intel project. Just because Intel updated the Baco whois info' and contact address after the scandel doesn't remove the fact that it is still an Intel outfit.
The benchmarks on the new Hammers will be very interesting. Even if their real world perfomance isn't as great as has been hyped. With SSE2 and higher memory bandwidth, they will benefit enormously from the current skewed state of most commonly used synthetic benchmarks. Until Intel includes another set of unique and exclusive instructions in its CPUs they will be left to fight the benchmark wars on an even playing field again for a while. – by NoM$KissAss
nataku… (11:02am EST Sat Jun 01 2002)using dvd2avi compressing straight to divx 4.12, of course thats my home hi/performance set up v. a laptop with a less than completly stellar set up.. ie 4200rpm hdd like all 2.5″ drives and things like that… but the other pIII 700 laptop was only 1 FPS behind it most of the time (same or simular components)…
it was interesting.
NoM$KissAss – whats up with the FUD your self? you accuse Nataku of the same things you do yourself…
yes the intel benchmarks are skewed, but you cant seriously sit there and tell me a 2100+ athlon xp (even a t-bred) can beat a 2.26 or a 2.53 p4, if you do your not guilty of FUD just plain dilusional…
as I usually say I use AMD processors exclusivly… you cannot beat the performance for the price…
right now, unlike 9 months ago you can beat the performance if you dont mind parting with 500$ of your hard earned money… I'd really rather spend 90$ for 80-90% the performance. – by next362″
Whatever… (12:28pm EST Sat Jun 01 2002)The truth is that AMD hasn't even brought out its big guns (the Hammer series). When they do, Intel will have absolutely nothing that can oppose them. (And by nothing, I mean the P4, which can only now finally stand up to Athlons costing 1/3 as much.)
The Geeks are right in thinking that this is a good time to buy a computer–probably the last great sweetspot before the Hammer era begins. AMD finally has their ducks lined up: great processors for pocketchange, relatively cheap DDR, and (finally) a mass-production chipset that does justice to the Athlon (VIA 266A).
I predict the next such sweetspot constellation won't happen for another two years. It will take that long to get the bugs out of the Hammer mass-manufacturing process and (especially) the Hammer chipsets. I also predict that the computer you buy in the present sweetspot will serve you very well for the two years until the next one.
– by thrifty enthusiast
next 362 yes its price performance that counts (12:40pm EST Sat Jun 01 2002)But yes in FPU intensive operations the Athlon still easily beats the top P4. When SSE2 can be used then the P4 has the advantage. Reality is most software isn't SSE2 optimized even if the benchmarks are. In many applications SSE isn't even practical and raw FPU power is what counts. Take digital multitrack recording, processing and editing. None of that software is is SSE optimized because SSE is inferior in that situation. But in MPEG encoding it works amazingly well.
My main point was simply the current benchmarks suites are misleading and the P4 is over hyped and over priced. – by NoM$KissAss
re: NoM$KissAss (2:02pm EST Sat Jun 01 2002)There really is no difference between AMD and P4, because you still have to run Winblows or, forbid, Linux–the OS for the nerd.
Running a windows computer is like driving a Ford Pinto with a custom paint job on it with flames on the hood.
And you geeks that have this AMD-Intel debate are arguing over how much Nitrous Dioxide you should store in the trunk.
Never mind you, ITS STILL A PINTO!!!
– by $$$
NoM$KissAss (2:52pm EST Sat Jun 01 2002)PNI 2Q next year or as rick said SSE3.
AMD wont have then for a year or two that means when I get my next system it will have a two year lead on AMD maybe even more because some it will also be
have to do with HT and AMD cant touch it with a tiny chip 80mm^2 chip.
next362″I will not disagree with you there, AMD does have the best bang for the buck. anyone who would is foolish.
$$$- my pinto didnt use NOS it had a 351C with 4 valves per cylinder(alunim heads due to better heat disapation let you raise compressin one point and it doesnt matter) running 10.78:1 compression on 92 octane gas. it beat out 97% of what I raced on the street and 75% on the strip.
– by Nataku
Nataku, praising SSE* again… (1:18pm EST Sun Jun 02 2002)…and again, and again…
Anybody who purchases a processor solely because it has the latest version of SSEwhatever needs to have their head examined for cranial vacancy.
SSE2 has been out now for nearly two years now.
At the time of SSE2's introduction, NO major applications included ANY support for it whatsoever.Now, nearly two years later, A FEW SSE2 applications are starting to appear, but mainly in niche areas (Photoshop, Lightwave, etc.).
The vast majority of people see little or no benefit from these instructions.
Now sooner or later SSE2 will become quite mainstream and we'll see it all over the place.
But take a look around and you'll see that AMD is putting SSE2 into their next chip line, due out in one or two more quarters — just in time to take advantage of the next wave of SSE2 applications!
Let Intel forge the way if they like.
By the time Intel's new “innovations” become mainstream, AMD will have already copied it, made it run faster, and made it cheaper as well.
If, on the other hand, you want to pay exhorbitant prices for a new processor that is marginally faster than an existing one, and that has an instruction set that won't be fully realized for at least 1-2 years, buy an Intel.
Barnum was right: a fool and his money are soon parted.
– by U.S. Marine
U.S. Marine (2:22pm EST Sun Jun 02 2002)So the system I paid for 2 years before AMD added SSE2 will perform better in 3 year than they day I bought it yes granted it wont be the fastest system anymore but I have never had a system perform better after 3 years of use thats a long system life.
So how is that Insanity? That a deal yes I paid 35% more for this than the same AMD system but will the AMD system be running faster in 2 years do to SSE2?
No Athlons and AXPs cant take advantage of SSE2, and when more code is coded for SSE2 the Athlon and APX will run it slower while my slower Mhz P4 is stil geting faster than your so you will upgrade to take advantage of have been and will continue to for another 2 years.
That sound like a deal to me an extra 2 years of better performing life for 35% more cost.
I have done the math it works I may have paid more once but you will have paid it twice, granted you will have a faster machine but if it still run like I need there isnt a reason to upgrade and that saves money. – by Nataku
Nope wrong again Nataku (4:26pm EST Sun Jun 02 2002)Any system bought today will be slow by comparison to next years budget machines. There are however sweet spots. Times when you get great relative performance for pocket change. The Athlon is in that area right now. The 1-1.4Gig Taluitan Celeron's (P3s by any other name). The very overclockable .18 Celeron 533 and earlier 300A.
– by NoM$KissAss
NoM$KissAss (5:31pm EST Sun Jun 02 2002)Not exactly, any budget AXP's will crawl compare to a budget P4 next year. With AMD now pushing SSE2 who wont code for it? All the AXP without SSE2 will run the code slower your link even proves it.
But SSE2 offer even more performance than SSE.
When the CPU doesnt have the Op codes it runs it slower even at higher Mhz.
Thus the even higher clocked P4A's and B's
will have a huge edge over the
current AXP system
Why do you think AMD is adding them to skew benches? No it increase performance hands down no one with a half a brain can fght that SSE2 isnt one of
the most impressive improvments to the X86 chips in the last 3 years.
Now your back tracking on your own statement Op code or the lack of them make a difference make up you mind on you place eigher they do something or they dont there isnt a middle ground. – by Nataku
Nataku SSE2 is limited in its usefulness (11:09pm EST Sun Jun 02 2002)So are you saying it is better to buy an over priced chip this year just so that it is only 47% behind the pack next year in some optimized software rather than 55%. Meanwhile in unoptimized software or any software you don't upgrade it will be
70-80% behind.
Maybe sometime next year I'll buy a Hammer system if I feel I need more speed. Have my cake and eat it. Powerful FPU, SSE2 for when its needed and no premium price. Considering an Athlon XP 1800+ and nForce board together cost less than half the price of the 2.26Gig P4 alone (real retail prices) and offer comparable performance today. I don't follow your argument for buying an expensive P4.
You should never buy flagship CPUs. They are for braggers and suckers and those with more money than sense. – by NoM$KissAss
and X86-64 is any better? (11:46pm EST Sun Jun 02 2002)it takes up 1/10 the space that SSE2 does so it must only do 1/10 of what SSE2 does so that makes hammer a bigger farce, all hammers 64 bit technology is a few SSE like op codes that are 64 bits. – by Nataku
Ask the guy form
(12:42am EST Mon Jun 03 2002) to show you what it can do. you will drool i dont understand how the code work exactly becuase i am not into programing he is sure there is a way to spped up almost everything with the huge varity of options that the 144 op codes offer. – by Nataku
Nataku's SSE fetish (1:08am EST Mon Jun 03 2002)Folks, apparently Nataku's logic is so far advanced beyond any of ours that we are just unable to grasp it with our primitive brains.
This appears to be his logic:
Intel produces a new instruction set called SSE2 for its processors, charges $400 for them, but almost no software exists that can take advantage of it.
Nataku runs out and eagerly plunks down his cash.
The rest of us spend $150 on an Athlon XP that kicks the crap out of Nataku's P4.
Nataku tells everyone that his processor will be better than everyone else's “next year” because SSE2 is going to make it all better.
Meanwhile, our Athlon's are still kicking the crap out of Intel's processors for half the price.
Next year rolls around.
Nataku's P4 is hopelessly obsolete, both by AMD *AND* Intel's product line.
Nataku continues to proclaim his superiority.
SSE2 optimized software appears.
The rest of us upgrade to Hammer's, which will most likely kick the crap out of Intel's processors for half the price.
Our total outlay for two AMD processors is still less than what Nataku paid for his P4.
Nataku plays Doom 3 at 10fps while the rest of us are running 100fps.
Nataku feels vindicated because he “hasn't had to upgrade to enjoy SSE2”.
The rest of us scratch our heads. – by U.S. Marine
Back in the real world… (1:18am EST Mon Jun 03 2002)…everyone collectively realizes that Nataku will continue to apologize for Intel come hell or high water, and that no amount of logical, factual evidence to the contray will convince him otherwise.
He is an Intel fanatic, a relic of the “nobody ever got fired for buying IBM” era.
Blinders, blinders, blinders…
The vast majority of us understand that Intel has dropped the ball magnificently with the P4.
They have purposefully sunset the P-III architecture which was extremely competitive (and the Tualatin showed us that it could remain so).
They purposefully have rigged THEIR OWN COMPARISONS such that the true fact remains hidden:
the P4 is in many ways inferior to its predecessors.
Much has been sacrificed on the altar of Ghz.
And let's not EVEN get started on pricing…especially when Intel's top 'o the line chip costs nearly three times AMD's flagship, but only outperforms it (at best) by 10% overall.
In the meantime, AMD has taken a bite out of Intel's market share.
People are beginning to understand that you DON'T have to pay a lot for that muffler (apologies to George Foreman).
RAMBUS, Caminogate, and other faux pas have shown Intel to be conflicting, vulnerable, sluggish, and arrogant.
Don't get me wrong, I *do* happen to like some of Intel's products.
I wish AMD had a chipset that could be as successful as Intel's 440BX was in its heyday.
And if Intel ever gets around to producing a chip with outstanding FPU speed again, for a good price, I'll recommend/buy Intel again.
But not until then.
I prefer to remain outside Intel's Reality Distortion Field.
Some folks, however, appears to be right in its center. – by U.S. Marine
And we leave you with… (1:29am EST Mon Jun 03 2002)…some nice quotes from Anandtech at Computex this year.
Hammer stuff galore, indeed:
” Pretty much every single chipset manufacturer is throwing their weight behind Hammer. The only one that's not is Intel and that's for obvious reasons. Compare this to the launch of the Athlon processor and you'll see that the AMD of today is much more confidence inspiring than the AMD of 1999.”
Head on over to
to get the whole enchilada. – by U.S. Marine
U.S. Marine (3:14am EST Mon Jun 03 2002)you just proof that military intelligence is an oxymoron if AMD didnt have SSE in the AXP all Pentiums would trounce all over it.
Lets talk real as in 100% + speed ups in coding talk to rick if you doubt what I say SSE2 may be hard to use but when you know how to use it nothing can touch it that is clear.
My point is the AXP that all the geeks have thrived on for the past 2 year are going to get slower over time like every PC. While as more programmers start to understand how to use SSE2 code and use it in the right way and fully use it to what it can do why do you think they included it in Hammer its the only good part of the chip.
look at SSE1 has done why do you think I tossed is st8 back at NoM$KissAss look at the stats!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. a chip 15 % slower just with SSE performs 128% faster if that isnt evidene what is?
you only see what you want not the whole picture, Intel design AMD copies and pastes.
For Hammer ya I want to see a 1.6Ghz POS do something if you look MB a maked sliped and listed the Mhz.
Thats pathic 2 extra pipeline stage .13 micron process
SOI and 1.6GHz ya the P4 was crap wasnt it? Plus they are all single channel MB execpt the one in the case that you cant see into wow so cool!!!!!!!!!!!!!! – by Nataku
lol… (11:14am EST Mon Jun 03 2002)msi changed the spec's on their site…
it now says:CPU Frequency: support high frequencyits even been changed for Engrish support (for assistance in reading and identifying engrish .)it looks like it used to say:CPU Frequency: ~1.6
(they sure changed the site quickly, i guess it raised too many questions for amd and them) – by next362″
I wonder if Nataku is working for Intel… (12:03pm EST Mon Jun 03 2002)I don't know about you guys, but my PC has to run the Software want to use with a good performance.
My Software performs still fine on my AMD Athlon 1000. If this fact changes I will upgrade my CPU to something in the upper third of the processors. I will look at battles like they a fought by Nataku and will see: “I will not need the new Intel Enhancements anyway before I have to upgrade again. Why should I pay for it?”
…and I am confident that I will see a processor called “Hammer” which will convince me (and kicks the crap out of Nataku's P4 *g*)…
…honestly: I don't care who makes my processor as long as it suits my needs! – by A08
Good points U.S. Marine (1:10pm EST Mon Jun 03 2002)I remember seeing the first Athlon boards on sale in white boxes. None of the board makers had any info about their Athlon boards on their websites nor would they dare stick their names on the boards through fear of Intel cutting off their BX chipset supplies. I saw one board with the Asus logo on it but no, it was just a sticker the shop had attached so customers would know which companies white box board they were buying.
How times have changed! – by NoM$KissAss
Nataku I don't know what you're smokin' but it must be expensive (2:17pm EST Mon Jun 03 2002)“a chip 15 % slower just with SSE performs 128% faster”
A skewed Sysmark benchmark designed to show SSE in the best possible light. Reality is something different. What the SSE2 optimized benchmarks don't show are the effects of the P4s crippled FPU.
For myself the only application I currently use that is CPU limited is MPEG4 encoding. My Athlon 1800+ on an nForce 220 with XMPEG and DivX 5.1 can manage 25fps whereas the 2.53 Gig P4 is apparently capable of 30fps. For a $530 premium, I'll leave the extra 5fps for someone else. – by NoM$KissAss
Nataku's smoking, all right…out his ears… (3:45pm EST Mon Jun 03 2002)Man, he seems ticked, don't he?
Maybe I pushed the “truth, fact, and logic” button just a little too hard.
[sigh] It's always so hard to destroy someone else's little fantasy, but I apparently am destined to do so…again.
Nataku, you are living a complete and total dream if you think that SSE2 instructions are going to magically make a 1 year old processor competitive with contemporary offerings.
You go further off the deep end by quoting some vague benchmark stating that without SSE2 it performed at X speed but with SSE2 it performed at 10X speed.
I'm sure somebody could come up with one little benchmark, specifically tuned for Athlons, that would completely obliterate ANY P4.
And you know what I'd say?
I'd say that benchmark was useless, just like whatever vague source you're quoting is.
If you would just take off your “AMD is crap, Intel is God” glasses for a moment you could go and look at absolutely any STANDARDIZED benchmark done in the past year and you'd see that in just about every case (Sysmark, Winmark, 3DMark, Linpack, LAME MP3 encoding, etc. etc.) the AMD system either bested the Intel system or scored with 5% of it.
You can go to HardOCP, AnandTech, SharkyExtreme, ArsTechnica, even Tom's Hardware — the results are all the same!
The AMD systems routinely score right up there with the Intel ones, but they cost 40%-60% less.
And in FPU-intensive tasks the Athlons righteously stomp all over the P4, thanks to Intel removing an FP unit to make room for deeper pipeline stages.
Nataku, if you continue to defend your obviously illogical, fallacy-filled arguments in this forum, you're going to be made a laughingstock and you'll lose all credibility.
Intel makes good processors.
So does AMD.
Both perform about the same, AMD's just cost a great deal less.
If you insist on disputing these facts you are hopelessly, thoroughly lost, and you're just wasting everyone's time with your baseless anti-AMD rhetoric. – by U.S. Marine
us marine… (5:37pm EST Mon Jun 03 2002)I'm not really completly defending nataku, but I am kinda sick of the everyones AMD is god stand point…
do I think nataku is slightly or more dissillusioned, yes… but he does have a point, although its not what hes argueing most of the time… intel makes the fasted processors out there right now… an amd 2100+ doesnt hang with a 2.53 p4…
it does hang quite nicely with a 2.2 and 2.4 on the 400mhz bus. so his dad can beat up my dad for the time being… so what. it really dosnt make me feel any less of a man and it dosent make me want to vigrously defend a corporation. AMD and Intel are both companies, they want to take your money… thats it. so please stop this silly banter back and forth and back and forth, I for one would like to hear more facts than flame bait. – by next362″
The facts are there (10:27pm EST Mon Jun 03 2002)Just some folks don't want to see them.
I fully disclosed that Intel now has the fastest (and most expensive) x86 processor on the planet for most purposes.
I can, however, put a dual Athlon 2100+ up against a dual Northwood B at 3D rendering and the Athlon comes up the winner, SSE2 and all.
Specialized, yes, but Nataku seems to think Intel can absolutely do no wrong.
I do not have the “AMD is God” symbol tatooed on my forehead, you know.
A couple of years back I strongly cautioned anyone to stay the hell away from “Super 7” K6-2 and K6-3 chips.
They were crap for anything but integer work, and everyone knew it.
I bought (and still have) several dual Intel machines.
I loved the wonderful engineering that they did but was always ticked about the whole “value” proposition.
Intel was damn proud of their stuff, and they priced it accordingly.
Then out came the Athlon.
Awesome FPU power — just ask any gamer, 3D author, or scientific analysis programmer and you'll hear it.
And the pricing was earthshattering — every bit as fast as Intel's best, but at half the cost.
If you want the absolute most bang for your buck, the best value for your dollar, and (Northwood B excluded) the fastest thing you can get, Athlon IS the only way to go.
As for the flamebait, I absolutely love pushing the buttons on people who are so firmly rooted in dogma that they'll continually spout stupidity that supports their fantasy rather than admit an ugly truth. Nataku seems to be in that camp, and as long as he feels like making a fool of himself in public, I'll be happy to oblige him.
It's a hobby of mine, immensely satisfying. – by U.S. Marine
us marine… (10:59pm EST Mon Jun 03 2002)I really didn't mean that directed at just you…
I apologize if it seemed that way… it was more frustration at seeing so many people bang their heads into a wall so many times… it starts to make my head hurt…
all it ever seems i ever read in these threads is nataku “intel and rambus rock!”, then everyone else and their mother saying “intel sucks a dick they will die and all their worthless engineers will live in hell and have to design tagagoichi toys for eternity!” im really just paraphrazeing but i think you get the idea…
(personaly the only intel products i own are 2 celery 333's [what kinda overclocker would i be w/o 1?] and a pentium mmx mobile [tillamook] cause they are pretty weird looking its a decoration for my wall at work)… – by next362″
Intel is Doomed !!! (6:38am EST Fri Jun 07 2002)If AMD had the money for good marketing, they would squash Intel like a bug!
It's just us geeks who know how much the Athlon kicks ass for a great price.
If a PC giant like DELL started putting Athlons in there PC's and promoted there quality, the Intel giant would piss on the floor.
With all the money Intel has you would think they should have a CPU that would be so superior it would make an AMD look like a 286 in comparison.
But there a bunch of F**k Ups!
Thank god for that, rock on AMD!!! – by xtech
In reply to MacJedi (3:11pm EST Wed Feb 12 2003)Apple does offer a nice line of products however they have tight vendor control and prices are high.
A PC based machine using Intel or AMD chips would cost considerably less and have considerable performance gains over the Apple.
– by Mr J
Processor Speeds (12:37pm EST Sun Feb 16 2003)While AMD might have an overall better chip you have to admit that Intel still holds the crown for the fastest chip. (not in ghz but in benchmarks)
In most cases the AMD trails slightly behind the latest Norwood. If only the HT technology would begin to offer some real throughput (ie feels like 2 processors on board)
– by Mr J
pooping pants (3:55am EST Tue Mar 08 2005) – by pooping-pants-f-m
Reader Comments}