Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 13:17:02 01/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 21, 2002 at 11:18:41, Jeroen van Dorp wrote: >>At least Intel is becoming competitive. Maybe the next generation of P-4's will >>really fly? > >Well, turning a bit OT... > >"Competitive" suggests that the Intel P4 processor is no match for the AMD >processor. That is not true. >Intel is already competitive. > >It's all depending on what you use the processor for. >The chess programs market may be a very important market for us, it is however a >niche market for the chip producers. > >In general AMD outperformes higher speeded Intel with it's lower clockspeed, but >it really doesn't "shatter" the P4. >The misconception comes from the fact that everyone still looks at clockspeed. >AMD has introduced another concept, while Intel still speeds up solely by >clockspeed. When the lower clockspeed outperforms the much higher we are still >so indoctrinated by the slogan "more MHz, more Speed" that we fall out our >chairs and declare that the lower clockspeed processor crushes the higher speed. >That would be the fact if both used the same solution. Now they both use another >concept and at this time the AthlonXP outperformes the P4, but that doesn't mean >"crushing" or "underperforming of the P4". > >>They still need to do alot of work with the new P-4 core, and it's a very >>complex chip so it may take some time before the chip reaches maturity. > >Intel delivers a very robust mass market processor which is more stable than >AMD's. Furthermore many more programs are implementing SSE2, and will benefit >from the P4. >Intel is clearly aiming and the higher end server market, where stability and >greater compatibility is much more important. > >While Intel does well, AMD is operating in the red zone financially, and can't >produce the bulk Intel delivers. It is questionable how long AMD will be able to >produce these processors for the prices they do now - and in suffcient amounts. > >Overall the P4 is a good processor which has the future, and still can grow with >the technology used, while the current AMD batch is already scratching the >limits. They do a swell job bypassing that with more operations per cycle. > >It's luck for us that a (much too) cheap processor like the AthlonXP is >available, but in the long run I still will place my bet on Intel. > >Time will tell, just MHO. > >J. Sorry I didn't word that very well and didn't mean in a strict sense that it wasn't competitive. I agree the future of the P-4 is quite bright and will outperform the Athlon processor in time IMHO as well. Good post! Terry
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.