X-bit labs

Started by: Anemone | Date 03/25/04

Comments: 4 | Last Comment:  07/23/05

[1-4]

1. The translation of this is, "we can't get out processors to run 64 bit code without coming close to burning up and melting, added to the fact that we are very hesitant after showing that Prescott performs so poorly in 32 bit, to show how much worse it is in 64bit mode, so lucky for us we can say that its all Microsoft's fault and they'll have to live with it..."

Well that pretty much seals the deal for me. Intel chips won't perform past 4ghz this year and even if they got TO that speed, they'd put out so much heat water cooling would be required. AMD FX chips beat the 3.4 in 9/10 of tests, offer 64 bit when its ready (hello Intel this is about being able to use my cpu in a future application, which of course is in the customers' best interest and thus something you would know pretty much next to nothing about), and are cooler and use cheaper components (memory) that performs better.

I think if you look back at the 2003 press release, you'll see that Intel cautions that 2004 financial results could be significantly lower than 2003. I think its getting much clearer why that might be the case.

Its pathetic that all the money people have paid them over the years has amounted to a technical failure of this scale. Good luck Intel, you need it.

2. 80.140.243.68

3. I like the Fuel workstation on the pic next to the headline :)

When it comes to Intel VS AMD it seems that it's only in the mobile market that Intel leads the race with it's Pentium M/Centrino often found in modern laptops. The still make Itanium aswell but thats only for some niche markets. As far as the rest goes, wich happends to be the majority of the market, AMD is currently putting out better products on the market.
I would rather wait until fall and get a system with Socket 939 and PCI Express slots then buy the Athlon 64 systems currently available on the market though.

4. whats better 64bit penyium or advanced amd

[1-4]