About the AMD Clawhammer - I think I've read someplace that it's really fast at 32 _and_ 64 bit x86 code. Could it be that the Clawhammer is a modular chip that runs a decoder for the 32 and the 64 bit instruction set? And would this mean a PPC decoder can be added easily, along with a altivec unit?
if Apple want to go x86, Intel should be the better choice, reasons:
1. Intel's microprocessor combined with it's own chipset is far more stable than AMD's. Just ask these who use whatever K7 or any mainboard for AMD processor, how many times did they update their bios for the system stability?
2. Intel is more technically advanced(chip design, fabrication etc....).
3. Intel's microprocessor is widely used in many giant computer companies, IBM, Dell...etc, etc...
that means, Intel has the lesser chance of getting into that kinda of trouble of today's PPC----market share. As for AMD, it seems only Compaq is using their CPUs.
<strong>if Apple want to go x86, Intel should be the better choice, reasons:
1. Intel's microprocessor combined with it's own chipset is far more stable than AMD's. Just ask these who use whatever K7 or any mainboard for AMD processor, how many times did they update their bios for the system stability?
2. Intel is more technically advanced(chip design, fabrication etc....).
3. Intel's microprocessor is widely used in many giant computer companies, IBM, Dell...etc, etc...
that means, Intel has the lesser chance of getting into that kinda of trouble of today's PPC----market share. As for AMD, it seems only Compaq is using their CPUs.</strong><hr></blockquote>
1) That is not AMD's fault. Their own chipsets are very stable. Nvidia's nForce chipsets are stable as well. I know. I have one of their boards. It is the VIA chipsets that most motherboard manufacturers use that makes some boards flaky. And this only really occurs when brave souls overclock their boards to get some "extra" juice out of their machines. VIA's PCI implementation has been questionable the last couple of years. Thus, the instability.
2) This may have been true a couple of years ago, but AMD has done an incredible job of giving Intel a run for its money. AMD's chips run at a lower clock rate but are still competetive with Intel's, even though the P4's have higher bandwidth RAM and FSB. I think this is a testement to AMD's chip design and fabrication. Not to mention they are far cheaper as well. Go try to build your own PC, and you will find going the AMD route offers more "bang for the buck". Their next generation "Clawhammer" makes Intel's 64 bit chips look like a joke. Just look at the specs.
3) This is debatable. How much of this is due to Intel strong arm tactics? It was very interesting to see Dell offer AMD machines a few years ago, cheaper and faster than the Intel offerings, and then suddenly Dell offers a press release saying they will not offer it anymore. We all know Michael Dell has no backbone, but give me a brake. Sony has stated they may use AMD's mobile Athlon in their next laptops. The mobile Athlon is where AMD may sneak into the OEM market.
Sure, going Intel may give some sense of security, due to its history and name, but don't count out AMD. AMD makes very powerful, and fast chips. I'm amazed with the speed I get with my machine. I just wish it was running a good operating system
Besides, I don't think Apple would go with Intel. I don't think Steve Jobs likes Intel. If you notice all the "bake offs" they do at MacWorld, they almost always go after Intel and hardly AMD.
1. Intel's microprocessor combined with it's own chipset is far more stable than AMD's. Just ask these who use whatever K7 or any mainboard for AMD processor, how many times did they update their bios for the system stability?
<hr></blockquote>
Well I own 3 Athlon systems and have built 5-6 others. Have never had to flash the BIOS on any of them for system stability. With the right component choices you do not have to compromise any stability to run an AMD system.
[quote]
2. Intel is more technically advanced(chip design, fabrication etc....).
<hr></blockquote>
In your expert opinion? From your analysis of processor performance? Or from Intel's PR? Highly contentious point there.
[quote]
3. Intel's microprocessor is widely used in many giant computer companies, IBM, Dell...etc, etc...
that means, Intel has the lesser chance of getting into that kinda of trouble of today's PPC----market share. As for AMD, it seems only Compaq is using their CPUs.<hr></blockquote>
Compaq, HP, Sony, and Micron are all Tier1 OEMs that use AMD processors in addition to a myriad of Tier2 OEMs. AMD has 22% of the marketshare for x86. The rest don't because of Intel's monopolistic practices. By your reasoning no one should use MacOS either since Microsoft's share of operating systems for personal computers is much greater. I don't see Dell or IBM selling a lot of MacOS systems, must mean MacOS is a lesser technology right? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
<strong>if Apple want to go x86, Intel should be the better choice, reasons:
1. Intel's microprocessor combined with it's own chipset is far more stable than AMD's. Just ask these who use whatever K7 or any mainboard for AMD processor, how many times did they update their bios for the system stability?</strong><hr></blockquote>
If one is to cheap to buy proper hardware one is bound to live with stability and performace issues. And the first K7 versions may have had bad chipset support but that is certainly not true anymore. And on the performance side of things AMD is way better. Just compare a Athlon XP 2000+ (with 1600 mhz I think) to a 2 ghz Pentium 4. Then compare the prices and then think again about what you said.
At least read up on the subject of Intel versus AMD on tomshardware.com and other places before stating how much Intel design is better than AMD. There is no comparison, technologically.
Comments
1. Intel's microprocessor combined with it's own chipset is far more stable than AMD's. Just ask these who use whatever K7 or any mainboard for AMD processor, how many times did they update their bios for the system stability?
2. Intel is more technically advanced(chip design, fabrication etc....).
3. Intel's microprocessor is widely used in many giant computer companies, IBM, Dell...etc, etc...
that means, Intel has the lesser chance of getting into that kinda of trouble of today's PPC----market share. As for AMD, it seems only Compaq is using their CPUs.
<strong>if Apple want to go x86, Intel should be the better choice, reasons:
1. Intel's microprocessor combined with it's own chipset is far more stable than AMD's. Just ask these who use whatever K7 or any mainboard for AMD processor, how many times did they update their bios for the system stability?
2. Intel is more technically advanced(chip design, fabrication etc....).
3. Intel's microprocessor is widely used in many giant computer companies, IBM, Dell...etc, etc...
that means, Intel has the lesser chance of getting into that kinda of trouble of today's PPC----market share. As for AMD, it seems only Compaq is using their CPUs.</strong><hr></blockquote>
1) That is not AMD's fault. Their own chipsets are very stable. Nvidia's nForce chipsets are stable as well. I know. I have one of their boards. It is the VIA chipsets that most motherboard manufacturers use that makes some boards flaky. And this only really occurs when brave souls overclock their boards to get some "extra" juice out of their machines. VIA's PCI implementation has been questionable the last couple of years. Thus, the instability.
2) This may have been true a couple of years ago, but AMD has done an incredible job of giving Intel a run for its money. AMD's chips run at a lower clock rate but are still competetive with Intel's, even though the P4's have higher bandwidth RAM and FSB. I think this is a testement to AMD's chip design and fabrication. Not to mention they are far cheaper as well. Go try to build your own PC, and you will find going the AMD route offers more "bang for the buck". Their next generation "Clawhammer" makes Intel's 64 bit chips look like a joke. Just look at the specs.
3) This is debatable. How much of this is due to Intel strong arm tactics? It was very interesting to see Dell offer AMD machines a few years ago, cheaper and faster than the Intel offerings, and then suddenly Dell offers a press release saying they will not offer it anymore. We all know Michael Dell has no backbone, but give me a brake. Sony has stated they may use AMD's mobile Athlon in their next laptops. The mobile Athlon is where AMD may sneak into the OEM market.
Sure, going Intel may give some sense of security, due to its history and name, but don't count out AMD. AMD makes very powerful, and fast chips. I'm amazed with the speed I get with my machine. I just wish it was running a good operating system
Besides, I don't think Apple would go with Intel. I don't think Steve Jobs likes Intel. If you notice all the "bake offs" they do at MacWorld, they almost always go after Intel and hardly AMD.
- trowa
1. Intel's microprocessor combined with it's own chipset is far more stable than AMD's. Just ask these who use whatever K7 or any mainboard for AMD processor, how many times did they update their bios for the system stability?
<hr></blockquote>
Well I own 3 Athlon systems and have built 5-6 others. Have never had to flash the BIOS on any of them for system stability. With the right component choices you do not have to compromise any stability to run an AMD system.
[quote]
2. Intel is more technically advanced(chip design, fabrication etc....).
<hr></blockquote>
In your expert opinion? From your analysis of processor performance? Or from Intel's PR? Highly contentious point there.
[quote]
3. Intel's microprocessor is widely used in many giant computer companies, IBM, Dell...etc, etc...
that means, Intel has the lesser chance of getting into that kinda of trouble of today's PPC----market share. As for AMD, it seems only Compaq is using their CPUs.<hr></blockquote>
Compaq, HP, Sony, and Micron are all Tier1 OEMs that use AMD processors in addition to a myriad of Tier2 OEMs. AMD has 22% of the marketshare for x86. The rest don't because of Intel's monopolistic practices. By your reasoning no one should use MacOS either since Microsoft's share of operating systems for personal computers is much greater. I don't see Dell or IBM selling a lot of MacOS systems, must mean MacOS is a lesser technology right? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
[ 04-14-2002: Message edited by: Eskimo ]</p>
<strong>if Apple want to go x86, Intel should be the better choice, reasons:
1. Intel's microprocessor combined with it's own chipset is far more stable than AMD's. Just ask these who use whatever K7 or any mainboard for AMD processor, how many times did they update their bios for the system stability?</strong><hr></blockquote>
If one is to cheap to buy proper hardware one is bound to live with stability and performace issues. And the first K7 versions may have had bad chipset support but that is certainly not true anymore. And on the performance side of things AMD is way better. Just compare a Athlon XP 2000+ (with 1600 mhz I think) to a 2 ghz Pentium 4. Then compare the prices and then think again about what you said.