To end the AMD v. Intel debate.

Announcements, advice, random banter, unrelated discussion, et cetera.

To end the AMD v. Intel debate.

Postby athlon-power » 2019-12-03 @ 16:05

There is only one good processor company, and that's Cyrix. I don't want to see any Intel or AMD plebeians try to correct this, there was always Cyrix, there was never anything but Cyrix, and there never will be anything but Cyrix. I have custom-designed a super computer that uses 30,000 225Mhz Cyrix 6x86MX CPUs, all overclocked to 2,475MHz by increasing the FSB to 825MHz. They are cooled by liquid helium, and operate in sync with each other, and the capabilities of this CPU array are far higher than even AMD's new Ryzen 9 3950x or Intel's Core i9-10980XE combined. It has 1024MB of PC-100 RAM overclocked to PC-825, also cooled via liquid helium, for each individual CPU, giving me 30TB of total RAM. The graphics accelerator is a combination of 10,000 of the same Cyrix 6x86 CPUs, but overclocked to 3,825MHz by increasing the FSB to 1,275MHz, with each CPU having 512MB of its own PC-100 RAM overclocked to PC-1275, giving me 5.12TB of video memory, with this array being cooled via liquid hydrogen. You foolish fools, using your foolish processors, made by foolish engineers, and your foolish graphics cards, made by even more foolish engineers, I have the ultimate, the pinnacle of computer evolution and existence, and there is nothing capable of challenging it in the known universe.

Ignore the top part if you want to avoid reading BS I just raved about for no reason.

Over time, I've found this: both Intel and AMD are equally competent, and equally inept- they both have their rises to temporary superiority, and eventually the other wises up, catches up, and then they are superior for a random amount of time.

Examples:

Intel fights AMD for 2.623 million years in court to prevent them from making a 386 design. AMD wins via a complex conspiracy involving time-travel and geo-political tampering, and makes their own 386 design by 1991. They create the fastest official 386 at 40MHz, causing several of Intel's executives to scream in agony, as AMD gets some of the low-end market.

Intel already had the 486, and they sling it into market. AMD clones this 486, always a couple of steps behind, but still right on Intel's heels. Intel creates the 586- I mean, the Pentium, can't trademark numbers- and then AMD's executives scream in agony. The only thing they have to throw back is the later Enchanced AM486 and AM5x86 CPU's. They sell those until they near oblivion, where they create the K5, which sort of rivaled the Pentium, but didn't. Intel makes the Pentium MMX, and then AMD makes the K6-2, and then Intel makes the Pentium II, and then AMD makes the K6-2, and then Intel makes the Pentium III, and then AMD makes the K6-III, and then they make the Athlon.

AMD finally competes with Intel a little, Intel executives screech, jump onto the ceilings, and crawl into the HVAC vents, and from there the P4 is made, and then AMD makes the Athlon XP, which was roughly equal (I think).

When AMD really caught up is when they made the Athlon 64. This freaked the already enraged and clinically insane Intel execs out, and they made the P4 Emergency Edition, and launched it a week before AMD's Athlon 64, to try to steal their thunder. Hmmmmmmmm, seems familiar. It becomes hit or miss for both AMD and Intel throughout the Pentium 4 generation, where most computers were overheating to death because Intel was pushing NetBurst to 8.6235GHz in order to compete with the Athlon 64 (IPC ftw!). Then Intel came out with Core2, and AMD started losing.

Then Intel came out with the Core iX, and AMD slunk into oblivion again.

Then AMD made Bulldozer in an attempt to combat Intel, but they might as well have tried to send a fleet of Mark IV's against a detachment of Panzerkampfwagen IV's, because it didn't work.

Then they came out with Ryzen, and oh boy, AMD smashed a bottle over Intel's head, and then Intel tried to fight back with the 8th and 9th gen Core ix stuff, and then AMD pulled out a Glock 19 and summarily executed Intel via gunshot to the head when they made 3rd gen Ryzen, and then kept shooting Intel's corpse with the 3950x and what will be 3rd gen Threadripper.

Intel will come back, in a few years' time. They'll make a new architecture, or send a Core i9 based combat droid to go back in time and attempt to kill the inventor of the AMD Athlon, which will fail because my 30,000 CPU Cyrix supercomputer will have already calculated an accurate prediction down to the nanosecond of 24 years into the future, and will hack an ICBM to target the approximate location of said i9 based combat droid.

This entire post turned out to be 98% BS. Oh well.

TL;DR:
Intel and AMD have switched positions as top dog multiple times over the years since AMD told Intel to die and started making their own CPUs instead of being Intel's slave. Intel was ahead for a long time with the Pentium and Pentium II, but then they released the Athlon, which directly and efficiently competed with the Pentium III. This continued through Pentium 4 v. Athlon XP and Pentium 4 v. Athlon 64, where the Athlon 64 in particular scared Intel. Intel made Core2, pushed AMD back with a more efficient (Pentium III based, mind you) architecture, which enabled good multicore. AMD fought back valiantly enough, but by the time Intel made Nehalem, AMD slunk into oblivion, with decent-performing but otherwise (especially as the market was concerned for many, many years) inferior CPUs like the Phenoms and so on. AMD made the bulldozer, which weakly rivaled Intel, and then made Ryzen, and across its 3 generations, they have Intel on their heels again. I believe Intel will catch up eventually, put AMD back down again, and then AMD will come back and put Intel down. This will happen until our true saviors, the Cyrix processors, return, creating a monopoly due to their blinding superiority. (I don't even like Cyrix that much, nor have I ever owned a Cyrix based computer at all, though I hope it triggers some people who had to suffer with Cyrix machines for years because everything else was prohibitively expensive)
User avatar
athlon-power
Member
 
Posts: 318
Joined: 2018-9-29 @ 00:15

Re: To end the AMD v. Intel debate.

Postby mothergoose729 » 2019-12-03 @ 16:31

Bruh... just no :dead: .

Do you even FPU?

I hate to break it to you, 'cause it's obvious you haven't left your mom's basement since the mid 90's, but cryrix went bankrupt because they suck - lawls.

It is all about VIA. I have a warehouse stacked 400u high at the bottom of the ocean, each CPU cooled by a pelter powered by a nuclear reactor capable of reaching 3 degrees kelvin. My quad core E chips are overclocked to 9ghz with 16gb of RAM each, with 4 individual nodes per 1u of rackmount space, for a total of fuck-you-AMD number of cores and go-suckit-intel petaflops of throughput.

Let's see you do that with Cryrix huh scrub?

Don't @ me.

#GetOnMyLevel
mothergoose729
Oldbie
 
Posts: 565
Joined: 2018-4-10 @ 03:04

Re: To end the AMD v. Intel debate.

Postby rmay635703 » 2019-12-03 @ 16:46

I find the above amusing as I was always a Cyrix/sis/pcchips head in the later 90’s till bankruptcy

They were cheap and did what I needed, (SNES emulator ran great)

I still have my pr233, and pr433 somewhere

Oh and any Cyrix fan should read this

https://www.somethingawful.com/feature- ... its-cyrix/
User avatar
rmay635703
Member
 
Posts: 222
Joined: 2019-1-19 @ 19:32

Re: To end the AMD v. Intel debate.

Postby Firtasik » 2019-12-03 @ 16:47

11 1 111 11 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 111 1 111 1 1 1 1 111
User avatar
Firtasik
Member
 
Posts: 463
Joined: 2013-7-21 @ 19:07

Re: To end the AMD v. Intel debate.

Postby DNSDies » 2019-12-03 @ 17:54

Firtasik wrote:Intel is still the gaming king:
https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/i ... ew,21.html


Ryzen 3800x is within 10% of that for 30% of the price.
I can take the $650 I saved going ryzen and get another 2080rtx and go SLI.
Also, that i9 runs at TDP rating of 165 watts. A 3700x can be had at 65w.
User avatar
DNSDies
Member
 
Posts: 151
Joined: 2013-8-03 @ 17:39

Re: To end the AMD v. Intel debate.

Postby kolderman » 2019-12-03 @ 18:18

> Then Intel came out with Core2, and AMD started losing.

This is the worst misstep in the whole history of CPU development. The Athlon 64 X2 was sooo good...and if AMD just continued that trajectory they would never have experienced that lost 15 years. Instead they decided the future was weird multi-cpu/mutli-gpu systems and servers, and left the normal consumer space to rot. I made the mistake of trusting them when I had to upgrade from my Athlon64 and went with a Phenom...under-performing and over-heating, and then made the mistake of upgrading that to an FX, with it false 6 cores that were really 3. At this point I am so over AMD it will be hard to go back (have a 4790k now, first intel CPU since early 90s!!), but I will see where they are at in a few years when it is time to upgrade again.
kolderman
Member
 
Posts: 323
Joined: 2019-5-12 @ 04:22

Re: To end the AMD v. Intel debate.

Postby Scali » 2019-12-03 @ 18:33

Cyrix never made an 8088, so they're irrelevant :)
Scali
l33t
 
Posts: 4543
Joined: 2014-12-13 @ 14:24

Re: To end the AMD v. Intel debate.

Postby Firtasik » 2019-12-03 @ 18:58

DNSDies wrote:
Firtasik wrote:Intel is still the gaming king:
https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/i ... ew,21.html


Ryzen 3800x is within 10% of that for 30% of the price.
I can take the $650 I saved going ryzen and get another 2080rtx and go SLI.
Also, that i9 runs at TDP rating of 165 watts. A 3700x can be had at 65w.

The gaming king ≠ the budget gaming king.
11 1 111 11 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 111 1 111 1 1 1 1 111
User avatar
Firtasik
Member
 
Posts: 463
Joined: 2013-7-21 @ 19:07

Re: To end the AMD v. Intel debate.

Postby 386SX » 2019-12-03 @ 19:38

Interesting discussion. But I think to remember something different after the first good Athlon (at least in the gaming community) wasn't the Athlon XP doing quite better on the general price/performance opinions than most P4 until the 3200+ that was basically useless at that point and really needed a new architecture?

Anyway I think to understand the points of these neverending boring "battles" between the companies but maybe it'd interesting to ask ourself why these battles always end up leaving a couple of companies surviving quite well. I don't remember how Cyrix end-up but I do remember some similar ways other companies did, like 3dfx. I'd not think it's always about the strongest wins/remains but also something about some products that without any sense were put on the market without any reason to be there at first. The Voodoo3 chip was already late what was the point of the VSA-100 that I suppose/imagine could have easily be out there instead of if not introducing anything extraterrestrial into it.
386SX
Oldbie
 
Posts: 1501
Joined: 2014-10-27 @ 12:56

Re: To end the AMD v. Intel debate.

Postby AlaricD » 2019-12-03 @ 21:29

Pffft, my WDC 65C816 scoffs at your Cyrix. Why, it's so efficient it just needs 16 bits instead of the Cyrix's 32. And it can even function with 1/8th the bits of a Core i7, if it really has to!

AMD is getting extremely compelling, but I think Intel will be my next desktop CPU again. Currently running an i7-6700K and it's still incredibly convincing. A friend of mine still uses the i7-920 and his biggest gripe is it's not SATA III. We each have GTX 970s; I figure if I jump up to the 10th-gen i7 I'll just drag that 970 into it and wait to upgrade the graphics card.
User avatar
AlaricD
Member
 
Posts: 448
Joined: 2017-6-28 @ 19:11
Location: Stillwater, America

Re: To end the AMD v. Intel debate.

Postby SirNickity » 2019-12-03 @ 21:34

Well, there's always hindsight. Someone comes out there, thinking outside the box, and says "but what if we do THIS?!" That's super successful for a while, because it's revolutionary and they were the only ones with a product. Then the "big boys" come out with a clone, and their superior R&D budgets, and the revolutionary sells what remains of their IP to someone with enough spending money to take up a new hobby.

Or the company's management gets addicted to blow and hookers, cooks the books, has a near-death experience on a yacht somewhere with thirty people they hardly know that are already fishing in his pockets for loose change before his last breath... Sometimes that happens too.
SirNickity
Oldbie
 
Posts: 963
Joined: 2018-11-08 @ 04:51

Re: To end the AMD v. Intel debate.

Postby DosFreak » 2019-12-03 @ 21:39

Hadn't had an AMD processors since my Althon XP 2800+ in 2004 but replaced my home server C2Q Q6600 with an EPYC this year and it's running great.
When I built my I7-6700k back in 2016 I stated I'll evaluate where AMD is at in 5yrs and if AMD is the "best" depending on cost and performance for gaming then I'll jump. So keep it up AMD only 1.5yrs to go! I tend to upgrade my desktop processor every 5yrs or greater depending on need.

Single core performance is critical for emulation such as DOSBox and PCem so if those are important to you then currently Intel is still the best but depending on what games you are playing may not be a big deal.
User avatar
DosFreak
l33t++
 
Posts: 10550
Joined: 2002-6-30 @ 16:35
Location: Your Head

Re: To end the AMD v. Intel debate.

Postby cyclone3d » 2019-12-03 @ 21:40

kolderman wrote:> Then Intel came out with Core2, and AMD started losing.

This is the worst misstep in the whole history of CPU development. The Athlon 64 X2 was sooo good...and if AMD just continued that trajectory they would never have experienced that lost 15 years. Instead they decided the future was weird multi-cpu/mutli-gpu systems and servers, and left the normal consumer space to rot. I made the mistake of trusting them when I had to upgrade from my Athlon64 and went with a Phenom...under-performing and over-heating, and then made the mistake of upgrading that to an FX, with it false 6 cores that were really 3. At this point I am so over AMD it will be hard to go back (have a 4790k now, first intel CPU since early 90s!!), but I will see where they are at in a few years when it is time to upgrade again.


Back when the Phenom came out up until Ryzen, it was pretty simple to see what the design problems with the chips were.

I think one of the main problems is that (from what I have gathered) is that they were using some dumb software to try to optimize the design.. which didn't work out too well for them.

The other problem was that their R&D money supply was pretty much killed due to Intel illegally trying to force them out of the market by at the worst refusing to sell Intel CPUs to companies that sold AMD systems and at the least jacking up their prices for some companies that did sell AMD based systems.

One of the major downfalls of those generations of AMD CPUs was the lame amount of cache that was on them. The Athlon 64 line of CPUs was excellent for the time and then they went full retard from Phenom through Bulldozer.
User avatar
cyclone3d
l33t
 
Posts: 3571
Joined: 2015-4-08 @ 06:06
Location: Huntsville, AL USA

Re: To end the AMD v. Intel debate.

Postby kolderman » 2019-12-03 @ 21:45

> Intel will come back, in a few years' time.

Your assuming that tomorrow will be like yesterday. We are starting to hit limits in the miniaturization of transistors, the cpu of a few years time might not be much faster than today's.
kolderman
Member
 
Posts: 323
Joined: 2019-5-12 @ 04:22

Re: To end the AMD v. Intel debate.

Postby DNSDies » 2019-12-03 @ 21:56

Firtasik wrote:The gaming king ≠ the budget gaming king.


Must be wonderful to live in a world where money is no object and you can drop $650 on a 6-8% performance boost because you've already got quad-SLI 2080s without blinking.
User avatar
DNSDies
Member
 
Posts: 151
Joined: 2013-8-03 @ 17:39

Re: To end the AMD v. Intel debate.

Postby CrossBow777 » 2019-12-03 @ 22:39

DNSDies wrote:
Firtasik wrote:The gaming king ≠ the budget gaming king.


Must be wonderful to live in a world where money is no object and you can drop $650 on a 6-8% performance boost because you've already got quad-SLI 2080s without blinking.


Since I mostly play games on my computer and pretty much always have, I stopped using AMD after my K6-2. I had a lot of BSODs and other strange issues with that damn thing. I went from that to a Celeron300A and I never looked back. So why did Quote the above? Here is why..

I didn't pay $650 for my current I7-9700k and yet it is nearly on par gaming performance wise with the much more expensive 9900k and KS chips. I only spent just a little over $300 back in August when this CPU was on sale. So my point here is that you don't have to drop serious money to get a good performing PC. If you stay on the higher end of middle ground, then you set yourself up with some upgrade options down the road when the latest and greatest cause the current latest and greatest today to drop in prices tomorrow...
Image
User avatar
CrossBow777
Member
 
Posts: 239
Joined: 2018-2-06 @ 03:30
Location: Ivory Tower, Fantasia - Tulsa, OK

Re: To end the AMD v. Intel debate.

Postby DNSDies » 2019-12-03 @ 23:12

Firtasik's charts had a $1100 Intel CPU topping the charts of a few games with Ryzen 3800x about 7-8FPS behind it, which costs about $300.

Ryzen CPUs are the best price/performance ratio, and the best performance/tdp ratio currently.

Also, since x64, Intel chips run on AMD instructions...
User avatar
DNSDies
Member
 
Posts: 151
Joined: 2013-8-03 @ 17:39

Re: To end the AMD v. Intel debate.

Postby Intel486dx33 » 2019-12-03 @ 23:59

Well, if you want to talk about computers that ran the internet you can't leave out
Sun Microsystem ( Sparc CPU )
HP ( PA-RISC CPU )
SGI ( RISC CPU )
Attachments
Screen Shot 2019-12-03 at 3.50.13 PM.png
Screen Shot 2019-12-03 at 3.51.41 PM.png
Screen Shot 2019-12-03 at 3.53.01 PM.png
Intel486dx33
l33t
 
Posts: 2181
Joined: 2018-5-17 @ 01:17
Location: U.S.A.

Re: To end the AMD v. Intel debate.

Postby Firtasik » 2019-12-04 @ 00:08

DNSDies wrote:Firtasik's charts had a $1100 Intel CPU topping the charts of a few games with Ryzen 3800x about 7-8FPS behind it, which costs about $300.

i5 9600K costs about $200 and it beats 3800x (about $370) in some games.
11 1 111 11 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 111 1 111 1 1 1 1 111
User avatar
Firtasik
Member
 
Posts: 463
Joined: 2013-7-21 @ 19:07

Re: To end the AMD v. Intel debate.

Postby athlon-power » 2019-12-04 @ 00:38

This all just reminded me of AMD v. Intel flamewars I found a while back while looking at random, ancient threads about Quake. They used to get nasty back then, and I imagine they still do, but finding people cursing each other out because Quake was optimized for the Pentium and not the K5 or whatever, while doing research on old CPUs, was quite shocking, and I don't think I'll ever forget that. Here's the best one I ever found:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic ... Au8a3RZVVo

Price to performance has always been an argument, even then. Some of the best posts are between posts 9 and 6, especially post 9. I wonder what "shawn," is up to these days. You think he uses Ryzen?
User avatar
athlon-power
Member
 
Posts: 318
Joined: 2018-9-29 @ 00:15

Next

Return to Milliways

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: pote2639, Xupack and 1 guest