It appears you have not yet registered with our community. To register please click here...

 
Go Back [M] > Madshrimps > WebNews
Intel: A Core New Low? AMD vs Intel article Intel: A Core New Low? AMD vs Intel article
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Intel: A Core New Low? AMD vs Intel article
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 14th February 2006, 20:58   #1
Madshrimp
 
jmke's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 79,021
jmke has disabled reputation
Intel: A Core New Low? AMD vs Intel article

While it is difficult to tell when Intel lost the initiative internally, it is not difficult to tell where it began losing it relative to the competition. That occurred in 1998, with AMD’s launch of the K6-2. Until the K6-2, AMD was at best able to offer some extra clock speed over Intel’s chips (remember the 486DX-40?) The K6-2 introduced “3DNow!”, a much-hyped technology which promised to address the K6’s poor floating point performance. With the K6, AMD had simply been caught flat-footed by the gaming market and the move to 3D. The original K6 design was actually superior to the Pentium in integer performance, clock-for-clock, and it was scaling better to boot.
__________________
jmke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th February 2006, 04:09   #2
Member
 
Sidney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 15,738
Sidney Freshly Registered
Default

To certain aspects, the K6-2 was better than what Intel could offer back in 1998. I too owned a laptop based on K6-2. The short fall of Intel today was three folded; 1) Pricing from 1998 to 2004, when the AXP gained younger audience acceptance from low pricing than P4, 2) Intel's failure to admit Hyper Transport efficiency and 3) Intel's failure to correc the excessive thermal loss issue.

It is only until the last 12 months Intel pricing is more in-line and at times lower than AMD. During this same period (1998 to 2004) AMD has demonstrated the innovations from a small company exceeding it's much bigger rival Intel with top company official feeling the all mighty stance.

The situation was greatly accelerated by PC enthusiasts who started hundred of hardware review websites; Toms Hardware did not get popular until the Intel PIII cultprit. The way I see it; AMD's success is certainly from it's innovation but owe the PC enthusiasts a big thanks in pushing the envelope for the low priced product effecting the graphic card and memory performance today.

And, that is my opinion.
__________________
lazyman

Opteron 165 (2) @2.85 1.42 vcore AMD Stock HSF + Chill Vent II
Sidney is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Intel Turbo Boost vs. AMD Turbo Core Explained jmke WebNews 0 5th May 2010 18:30
ASUS Develops Own Technology to Rival AMD Turbo Core and Intel Turbo Boost jmke WebNews 0 20th April 2010 21:03
AMD Beats Intel in 45nm Low Power Server Test jmke WebNews 0 20th March 2009 22:13
AMD Phenom X4 9350e Low Cost Quad Core jmke WebNews 0 3rd August 2008 11:23
AMD Introduces ‘AMD Business Class’, Designed With Business in Mind jmke WebNews 0 28th April 2008 10:33
Intel Core 2 Duo Vs. AMD AM2 jmke WebNews 0 13th September 2006 13:19
Low Power and Energy-Efficient CPUs from Intel and AMD jmke WebNews 0 22nd August 2006 14:47
AMD challanges validity of Intel Dual Core Liquid3D WebNews 13 4th June 2005 00:10
The Dual Core AMD vs. Intel Stress Test Sidney WebNews 0 3rd June 2005 16:56
AMD Cranks Up Speed of Low Power AMD Opteron Chips jmke WebNews 0 23rd March 2005 12:29

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:35.


Powered by vBulletin® - Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO