Intel Demonstration Fails

[Hamma]

http://news.com.com/1606-2-6047401.html

He has a little trouble getting their new device to work. :lol:

[OneManArmy]

haha goodthing that didnt look bad :rofl: i bet he was swearing up a storm when that was over, hell i bet someone got fired.

[Squeeky]

The echo's, and the microphones, and the excuses, excuses, :lol:

[Lartnev]

3 things you should never work with live:

1)Children
2)Animals
3)Computers

:)

[Ait'al]

3 things you should never work with live:

1)Children
2)Animals
3)Computers things running under what looks like partial microsoft windows based interface!

:)

Well we know intel has gone that root. I wonder if they hired someone from microsoft for the software.

Maybe we could go for a job testing equipment before the live run on those things.

/note: i have to quit posting stupid things.

[BigBuster]

lol I think AMD is the way to go. Thats what I have heard anyway.

[Giovanni]

Well as far as I know, there is no real "ultimate CPU"...

Both AMD and Intel have their advantages, whilst Intel might not suit the needs of gamers as much as AMD it can still perform pretty good. It's all a bunch of technical mumbo jumbo really but honestly people usually have a preference... I'm not THAT much of a zealot but I love AMD, I'm not saying Intel can't do the job thought...

In other words, you'll never hear me say: "OMGZ intelz suxxorz! AMD RULEZ!"

[Lartnev]

No No Ait'al.

Computers, period.

[Hamma]

I went AMD with my latest comp for the first time, I am pretty happy with it so far.

[Giovanni]

Well... as of now if you go with ANY dual-core processor I'd slap you if you went with an Intel. Simply because right now the big difference is that intel's second processor only runs if you achieve a certain load on the first one. That first load being sort of mundane, most people will never achieve it... in fact the only way most people will achieve making the second proc by using a program who takes advantage of the dual core tech.

AMD runs on a different concept, both proc's work hand in hand to take the load you give them and hopefully run better thanks to that. You will still need to achieve a great deal of CPU load to actually take full advantage of the AMD but it's alot less then Intel to star with, on top of the better gaming performance. Not to forget the price, you can usually find the AMD's for a little less then the Intel's. The AMD will also take advantage of programs make to take dual-core tech.

Edit: It likely has something to do with the memory controller. AMD's memory controller is an integrated part of the Athlon 64 X2's chip architecture. Intel's memory controller, exists as a separate piece of silicon on the motherboard. The additional distance between the CPU and the memory controller adds to the processing lag time...

In short, AMD dual-core > Intel Dual-core

[Rbstr]

Gio that's just not true, Intels dual cores split the load whenever possible just like the AMD's. Part of the issue is alot of programs aren't multithreaded, so one core handles the load.

The problem with the intel parts is two fold, those CPU's each have to share the 200mhz front side bus, where as AMD's hypertransport had plenty of bandwidth to share. It's still based on the p4 still and that doesn't help much including putting off a ton of heat.

Now I hear the mid-range Conroe part(no longer based on the p4, uses 64bit ectentions just like AMD) apperantly kicks the FX-60's ass.

I'm not sure I belive it, but hey.

[Giovanni]

Funny, from what I had heard Intel didnt work the same way the 64 did... but then again... maybe I was wrong :)

Either way... AMD dual-core is more affordable and performs better in becnhmarks.

[Mag-Mower]

Am I ever glad I invested in an Intel system :D

http://www.dlmag.com/894/intel-s-conroe-claims-victory-over-athlon.html

Sounds nice :)

added: Some benchmarks, and these honestly blow me away...

http://techreport.com/etc/2006q1/conroe/index.x?pg=2

[Giovanni]

Tests run by Intel...

But either way the Conroe is the next-gen chip... it's like trying to race your grandfather. Wait till AMD comes out with it's new chip...

[Electrofreak]

no... the next revolutionary chip is going to be the Cell... just read a few articles about it... it's absolutely incredible.

Edit- here you go: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2005/09/05/8271403/index.htm

[Mag-Mower]

I heard the cell is upto 50x faster then a P4... thats crazy, I want one!

[Electrofreak]

The Cell is about 60 times faster for graphics than the chip in the PS/2 and runs at 192 gigaflops, or 192 billion floating-point operations per second--five Cells together roughly equal the speed of the world's fastest supercomputer circa 1999.

And this coming from an article made in September... how much you wanna bet IBM has managed to improve upon that?

[Mag-Mower]

Plus, the cells are relativley cheap, I heard that the cell only costs arround $250...