Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:50:32 01/08/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 08, 2004 at 19:21:49, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On January 07, 2004 at 15:02:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On January 07, 2004 at 14:46:30, Martin Andersen wrote: >> >>>On January 07, 2004 at 14:14:41, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>>I know. Thye'll make me switch over to Intel. >>>>> >>>>>So you are moving over to Intel because you don't like the name ? >>>>>Why ? >>>>> >>>>>Martin. >>>> >>>>I think it was a joking comment. "I'm moving to Intel because with AMD I >>>>have no idea what I am buying since the product names are highly confusing >>>>and misleading." >>>> >>>>:) >>> >>>Maybe it was a joke :-) >>> >>>Seriously, why is the name confusing and misleading ? >>>Let's consider you are the boss of AMD, and you want to sell >>>Athlons's to the average consumer. Then you will know that this >>>consumer only looks at the CPU's speed and rarely anything else. >>>So she sees a Pentium4 at 3 Ghz and an Athlon 2.1Ghz, and of course >>>she buys the Pentium. >> >>What is wrong with it is now we are mixing 64 bit processors with 32 bit >>processors, and naming them to make it appear they are in the same "family". > >Where is this going on? Aren't all of the 64 bit Athlons named "Athlon 64"? They are not being called that everywhere. IE 3400+ what? > >Besides, why shouldn't 64-bit Athlons be family members with 32-bit Athlons? The >architecture is very similar and they're backward compatible. The Athlon 64 is >related to the Athlon more than the Pentium 4 is related to the Pentium. say "opteron". that is what we are talking about. Yet it has been called opteron, FX51 and athlon-64. Yes, I know that one has 1/2 the bus width, but still, they are essentially the _same_ CPU. I don't see the need for the confusion. Any more than I liked the old Intel crap of 486-50DX2 and other such nonsense that tossed in the internal clock vs the external clock stuff. > >>IE I'd take an opteron any day. Or even a FX51. But when the names start >>to exclude the fact that it is a 64 bit processor, then I don't like the >>naming convention. > >Then you must have hated the MIPS R4000 and the PA-RISC 8000. Even the name >UltraSPARC doesn't indicate that it's 64 bit. R4000 was fine. As was R10K and so forth. The part number was pretty clear. Sun's ultra-sparc has been "64-bit" from the beginning, so there was never any confusion there. Previous chip was "super-sparc" and was 32 bit. I find I have no trouble comparing a ultra-sparc at XXXmhz, vs a MIPS R10000 at YYYmhz, without the 3200+ stuff tossed in. That was my only point... The opteron is good enough that it doesn't _need_ to be compared to the Intel MHZ rating... Every time they use 3200+ they are referencing Intel, and that seems bad for _this_ particular chip. > >-Tom
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.