PC's will pwn macs in 09'

[StateCCM]

AMD is going to release a single CPU 16 core processor
Intel will only release their single CPU 8 core processor

AMD will bring intel back to its knees just like it did back in 03' with the 64-bit CPU's

[EricNau]

Thanks for the heads-up. Would you mind providing any reliable links?

Meanwhile, you know Apple can switch to AMD at a moment's notice, right?

[dukebound85]

whats preventing apple with using amd chips again??? lol

[StateCCM]

whats preventing apple with using amd chips again??? lol

i dont think apple will want to migrate to AMD's x86-64 technology

[StateCCM]

Thanks for the heads-up. Would you mind providing any reliable links?

http://www.techradar.com/news/computing-components/graphics-cards/amd-plots-16-core-super-cpu-for-2009-146488?rd=tr

[TuffLuffJimmy]

and how many people do you think will need to run 16 a 16 core processor. Plus OS X still runs on AMD so I don't get your point at all... other than, of course, you have no point.

edit: seriously? how old are you? Pwn? I hate this generation

[StateCCM]

you have no point

point is, AMD will never make chips for macs, and PC's will be almost 2x faster than a Macs intel CPU.

[dukebound85]

point is, AMD will never make chips for macs, and PC's will be almost 2x faster than a Macs intel CPU.

um pretty sure amd will sell chips to anyone who is willing to buy them lol, including apple

you make no sense!

[flopticalcube]

point is, AMD will never make chips for macs,
They already do. They make the ATI graphics chips that go into the iMacs and some Mac Pros.

[Spike099]

Can windows even make use of a 16 core chip. From what i've seen and heard it's the biggest pain just to get 64 bit windows installed with ALL compatible drivers. Common now.

[angelneo]

I sense trolls.... No use debating with them, they came here only to pick a fight.

[stevegmu]

I thought AMD went out of business...

[dukebound85]

I thought AMD went out of business...

nope

[clevin]

I thought AMD went out of business...

i fear that day, this world will be damned w/o competitions. we would probably paying double price now for CPUs if AMD never existed.

[Rodimus Prime]

i fear that day, this world will be damned w/o competitions. we would probably paying double price now for CPUs if AMD never existed.

I would agree. Intel finally got it act together on 64 bit chips after AMD was pounding them with athonlon. In 03 AMD not only had more power and faster chips but they where cheaper as well.

Right now AMD is playing catch up but I willing to bet things will swing back there way.

As for x86-64 apple is already using the tech. intel more or less reversed engineered it because they had nothing of their own.

As for apple using AMD just not going to happen because with intel they get one company handling the chips and the mother boards plus they can continue to shove the integrated crap on us saying how great it is.

as for a link here http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/index.cfm?newsid=10231 ran a quick google search and grab one of them.

[liketom]

AMD , to think Apple may have switched to them instead of Intel :D

Motorola all over again if that had happend

Thank god Apple went Intel

[DoFoT9]

who cares about cores... nobody!!!

the CPU is not the bottlebeck currently, the CPU sits and waits for RAM and HDD to read. so lets worry about making THEM faster before we keep upgrading out CPU's... i dont get why we need to keep increasing CPU's at such a phenominal rate, why cant we just increase RAM to 1066mhz stock, then maybe take it to the next double or even more some. then what about HD's why cant SSD's be develped more, or what about IBM's new racetrack memory??

quick quick!

[Santa Rosa]

point is, AMD will never make chips for macs, and PC's will be almost 2x faster than a Macs intel CPU.

Intel is cooler though lol :rolleyes:

[tom.]

This is ridiculous and hilarious at the same time. You genuinely believe that AMD will pull that off? By 2009? They haven't even managed a successful quad core yet. The phenom series sucks, the release was a joke and an anti-climax.

Funny guy, stop trolling.

The article is getting on for a year old, when AMD still thought they were going to pull off the sale of the phenom. Now we all know that was pathetic, I'm highly skeptical to any media attention they receive. Don't get me wrong, I bought several Athlon64's but it just isn't worth it anymore. They just keep promising good things and they never happen. They were months and months out on the Barcelona release, so the idea of this in 2009 tickles me.

AMD need to stop making press releases and start making some good processors
Until then, dual Xeons will do me just fine.

[mags631]

AMD is going to release a single CPU 16 core processor
Intel will only release their single CPU 8 core processor

AMD will bring intel back to its knees just like it did back in 03' with the 64-bit CPU's

Out of curiosity, does one of your parents work for AMD? Ask him/her why next year will be any different than the past few.

[Pressure]

It doesn't matter if AMD can produce a native 32-core wonder processor.

Their problem have always been supplying the market with the processors and seeing how they aren't spending any money in 2008 on Research & Development or on fabs I doubt they would be able to supply even Apple.

Just see how "readily available" the K10 processor announced 6 months ago are :rolleyes:

Nehalem will actually be able to execute 16-threads in its 8-core version.

Next year Mac Pro will likely have 2 x Nehalem for a total of 16-cores (with the ability to run 32-threads).

[mperkins37]

I am still hoping that using the expression pwned will result in instant banning.
how about it moderators?
Talk about bastardization of the English language.
As I have read & understand, it started as someone misspelling owned, then some idiots perpetuated it as if it were cool......
I feel embarrassed for them all.:o

[tom.]

Next year Mac Pro will likely have 2 x Nehalem for a total of 16-cores (with the ability to run 32-threads).
I agree on the whole, but my personal prediction is the Mac Pro will be Octo Nehalem at first, with the hi-end 16 core available at a price (and a half ;P).

I sure hope you are right though!

[sushi]

I would think that no matter what company produces what chip, as long as it is x86 compatible, Mac OS X will run on it.

Rumor has it that SJ made the decision to switch to Intel at the very last minute after talks with IBM. So who knows what could happen in the future.

[bennyboi]

Probably lame trolling, but in case it wasn't...

I'm a video editor who occasionally does after effects when the company's graphic artist is slammed, and I record music as a hobby (all on mac: Avid, fcp (at home), and Logic Pro).

Even I won't be salivating at a 16 core chip. Anyways, Intel will have one soon after I'm sure.

I'm not a fanboy. I don't hate Windows. So tell me, why will Apple be pwned? Will 90% of the computing market suddenly know and even be interested in 16-Core? Over User Interface?

:confused:

EDIT: by the way, if you youtube "pwned" strap on your seatbelt for hilarity.

[PlaceofDis]

shouldn't this be AMD will "pwn" Intel? PCs use Intel chips too i hear, and quite a few of them if i'm not mistaken.

even if the pendulum swings backs to AMD next year, it'll go back to Intel down the road. competition is good.

[techlover828]

troll, has that stupid youtube video in one of his other threads, don't bother arguing.

[mr.light]

troll, has that stupid youtube video in one of his other threads, don't bother arguing.

Saw that too. Banishment is too easy on him. If we ignore him maybe he'll go away.

[BrianKonarsMac]

hey guys...16 is greater than 8! Let's all talk about it! :D Also, if you couldn't tell from my post, I can predict the future.

[EarthDawn]

if the OS constantly crashes and freezes who cares...


I left microsoft and PC because there was no stability....

fast or slow it doesent matter if it wont work...

my 4+ year old PowerBook smokes all my previous laptops including the 1 I gave away to my mom last year.

just my 2 cents

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Can a mod close this thread and ban StateCCM?


pleeeeeeease.

on another note, the number of cores doesn't matter too much until the software can take advantage of all of them, and most software doesn't even take care of two cores yet.

[Rodimus Prime]

I would not count AMD out on it. From what I remember the Athonlon shot AMD from sucking wind to putting intel on it knees so to speak.

They could easily do it again here. It is more just wait and see approach. I am really wanting to keep an eye on it as I will be building a new PC with in next 12 months.

[ravenvii]

StateCCM hasn't replied in a while. You guys know why?

Because...
http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w36/Spike_Fury/failboat2.jpg

[tom.]

StateCCM hasn't replied in a while. You guys know why?

Because...
http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w36/Spike_Fury/failboat2.jpg

Shamefully, I love it.

[benzslrpee]

for AMD's sake i hope they can whip out a 16 core to propel them from the world of suck they are in...and it sure wouldn't hurt Intel to feel some competition again.

[stainlessliquid]

i fear that day, this world will be damned w/o competitions. we would probably paying double price now for CPUs if AMD never existed.
What competition? AMD hasnt competed with Intel since the Athlon 64. Their current processors have been some of the most underperforming CPU's in history compared to the Core 2 Duo. They need to do something new to actually compete with Intel, Im beginning to think that the Athlon XP/64 was just a fluke where AMD got lucky or where Intel fell asleep at the wheel with the crappy Penitum 4.

Maybe "bulldozer" will finally beat Intel again, but every processor AMD has hyped up as a Core killer has failed miserably.

[nick9191]

What a pointless act considering the majority of applications and games can only use 1-2 cores. We need to keep it at 4 core for a while and just concentrate on making them faster.

[tom.]

I agree, ramp the clock speeds more for a while, we still need this because not enough developers are coding multithreaded apps. 16 cores is no bloody use when so many apps are not ready for it.

[DoFoT9]

I agree, ramp the clock speeds more for a while, we still need this because not enough developers are coding multithreaded apps. 16 cores is no bloody use when so many apps are not ready for it.

says the one with a 2.8 quad :p

but yea, i agree. increase all the other hardware before we take the CPU up anymore aye??

[Rodimus Prime]

What competition? AMD hasnt competed with Intel since the Athlon 64. Their current processors have been some of the most underperforming CPU's in history compared to the Core 2 Duo. They need to do something new to actually compete with Intel, Im beginning to think that the Athlon XP/64 was just a fluke where AMD got lucky or where Intel fell asleep at the wheel with the crappy Penitum 4.

Maybe "bulldozer" will finally beat Intel again, but every processor AMD has hyped up as a Core killer has failed miserably.

You do know that the Athlon/64 and XP run was a very long run. AMD had a huge up on intel for years.
Before that AMD was still cheaper for how fast the chips where. Go back though history AMD and intel have been trading spot for a good while. Right now intel is up. AMD will more than likely replace that soon.

Sit back and watch they might let something big drop. Also I am willing to be AMD is reverse engineering intel chips. Intel did that on the Athlon. It just takes a while to reverse engineer the chip and then get something into productions.

[tom.]

says the one with a 2.8 quad :p

but yea, i agree. increase all the other hardware before we take the CPU up anymore aye??

Yeah totally, as someone else has said, CPU isn't even where the bottleneck is at, my disks can't write fast enough, and i can't afford a RAID card right now!

There are a few apps which i use that are multithreaded, but there is a hell of a lot of catching up to do for developers.

[DoFoT9]

Yeah totally, as someone else has said, CPU isn't even where the bottleneck is at, my disks can't write fast enough, and i can't afford a RAID card right now!

There are a few apps which i use that are multithreaded, but there is a hell of a lot of catching up to do for developers.

if you look back i believe i said that lol :D

[twoodcc]

well, i hope AMD does come through, but not for the reasons the OP said (if he even said any reasons). this thread is pretty terrible though, and pointless almost.

anyways, if AMD can pull this off, then they will just drag Intel right along with them

[DoFoT9]

well, i hope AMD does come through, but not for the reasons the OP said (if he even said any reasons). this thread is pretty terrible though, and pointless almost.

anyways, if AMD can pull this off, then they will just drag Intel right along with them

i too hope AMD pulls through, more for the reason that its not very good to have intel having 100% market share. it will be too expensive. i spose after a little while it will come back down, but u kno...

[Zwhaler]

What a pointless act considering the majority of applications and games can only use 1-2 cores. We need to keep it at 4 core for a while and just concentrate on making them faster.

I agree, ramp the clock speeds more for a while, we still need this because not enough developers are coding multithreaded apps. 16 cores is no bloody use when so many apps are not ready for it.

says the one with a 2.8 quad :p

but yea, i agree. increase all the other hardware before we take the CPU up anymore aye??

Yeah totally, as someone else has said, CPU isn't even where the bottleneck is at, my disks can't write fast enough, and i can't afford a RAID card right now!

There are a few apps which i use that are multithreaded, but there is a hell of a lot of catching up to do for developers.

Wasn't it like less than a year ago that everyone was talking about how much more important cores are than clock speed :D

[chagla]

\

Thank god Apple went Intel ummm...why was the switch from PPC? i heard even though pc processors had higher clock rates than ppc's but ppc's were faster and better.

so why ppc -> intel?

[Pressure]

I agree on the whole, but my personal prediction is the Mac Pro will be Octo Nehalem at first, with the hi-end 16 core available at a price (and a half ;P).

I sure hope you are right though!

I think you misunderstood.

The Quad-core Nehalem can run 8-threads at once.

[Rodimus Prime]

ummm...why was the switch from PPC? i heard even though pc processors had higher clock rates than ppc's but ppc's were faster and better.

so why ppc -> intel?

tell you the truth PPC had fallen behind x86 chips. They just where not keeping up. While clock for clock they where better x86 just fan faster clock speed over ran them.

[dukebound85]

ummm...why was the switch from PPC? i heard even though pc processors had higher clock rates than ppc's but ppc's were faster and better.

so why ppc -> intel?

maybe it was the apple kool-aid lol jk

also because since then intel has been able to make awesome chips that arent heat mosnters and be able to say go into notebooks. something ibm couldnt handle

i mean it was like ppc was the yankees back in the day but now the intel is the red sox all dominating and such for the consumer line of chips

the industry isnt static....i mean there was a time when amd was better than intel....

[stainlessliquid]

ummm...why was the switch from PPC? i heard even though pc processors had higher clock rates than ppc's but ppc's were faster and better.

so why ppc -> intel?

That was pretty much NEVER true except on Apple.com where they distorted benchmark results. Apple was the laughing stock for years among PC enthusiasts since PPC moved so slow and never had a chance to keep up with AMD and Intel. Macs were really quite slow during the G years, I dont remember what the speeds were like during the beige mac years.

[killmoms]

That was pretty much NEVER true except on Apple.com where they distorted benchmark results. Apple was the laughing stock for years among PC enthusiasts since PPC moved so slow and never had a chance to keep up with AMD and Intel. Macs were really quite slow during the G years, I dont remember what the speeds were like during the beige mac years.

Not really true. When the G4s arrived they were faster than the chips in most PCs. Then Motorola wasn't able to ramp up clock speeds to compete. Basically the same thing happened again when IBM delivered the G5—it was as fast (and occasionally faster) than comparable Intel/AMD chips when it was introduced, but IBM had trouble scaling clock rates. So each time Apple started out strong but then subsequently lagged behind. When they switched to Intel, the G5 was essentially as stuck as the G4 was, and so their notebook lines were hurting QUITE a lot.

[Eraserhead]

^^ Also for most of the G3 and earlier era the chips Apple was using were significantly quicker than Intels.

[GimmeSlack12]

That was pretty much NEVER true except on Apple.com where they distorted benchmark results. Apple was the laughing stock for years among PC enthusiasts since PPC moved so slow and never had a chance to keep up with AMD and Intel. Macs were really quite slow during the G years, I dont remember what the speeds were like during the beige mac years.

You don't really know what you're talking about do you? You don't remember the speeds probably cause you never had one. The G3 and G4 are two great processors from Apple's past. Not to mention the 601 and 604's.
Guys, the troll has posted and left give this thread a break.

[Eraserhead]

The G3 and G4 are two great processors from Apple's past.

I agree generally, but the G4 wasn't that great, they took ages to ramp up the clock speed and then it stagnated in the laptops for ages.

[stainlessliquid]

Not really true. When the G4s arrived they were faster than the chips in most PCs. Then Motorola wasn't able to ramp up clock speeds to compete. Basically the same thing happened again when IBM delivered the G5—it was as fast (and occasionally faster) than comparable Intel/AMD chips when it was introduced, but IBM had trouble scaling clock rates. So each time Apple started out strong but then subsequently lagged behind. When they switched to Intel, the G5 was essentially as stuck as the G4 was, and so their notebook lines were hurting QUITE a lot.
"Most" isnt all. Apple liked to compare pretty standard CPU's against their top of the line cpu's, so of course their top of the line will beat most. This is where the whole "compare a PC that costs as much as a mac" argument came from since Apple was benching $3000 macs against $1500 PC's with consumer level pentiums. I dont ever remember a G# being the fastest processor on the market, what I do remember though is how Apple had to quickly change some benchmark comparisons for the G5 after it got benched against PC's by third parties since it ended up losing most tests.

They werent useless processors, they competed just fine with most PC's. The newly introduced powermacs might have been faster than the fastest pentiums for a shortwhile but they never could consistently hang with xeons, opterons, or FX's which were more in tune to the powermac's price range. Besides, pentiums werent that good back then, athlon was easily the king and the Athlon FX was just a monster.

[Eraserhead]

"Most" isnt all. Apple liked to compare pretty standard CPU's against their top of the line cpu's, so of course their top of the line will beat most.

Before 1999 (i.e. the G4 introduction) PPC>Pentium and 680x0>x86.
Between 1999 and 2003 sometimes G4>Pentium, but not often.
After 2003 high end G5>Intel, though certainly not by the margins Apple was claiming.

I also suspect the high end G5>Athlon FX most of the time as the AMD got completely smashed by the Core2Duo chips and they only barely beat the dual core G5 at equivalent clock speeds.

[nick9191]

Companies like Dell who put AMD chips in their computers are what is keeping AMD in business.

Come on AMD :( Pull something out the hat.

[Tailpike1153]

Macs and PCs use roughly the same parts. Processors not, yet. Given that Apple had a whole secret project to jump to Intel CPUs, it would probably a good guess that they have a team working on running the Mac experience on AMD CPUs. Speed isn't everything. Yes, there are tasks that multiple processors and blazing speed would be handy. But if the price of speed with multicore cpus is spotty driver coverage in Linux and BSODing with Vista and XP...I ain't my breath.

[MacBoobsPro]

32 core PC vs Quad Core Mac

[Sesshi]

Ah, the usual moronic Apple-addled responses. What a surprise.

And by the way, one of the reasons I moved from PPC/Apple to Intel/Windows back in the 90's was that in terms of the everyday, real-life experience Apple's benchmarks were way off the mark.

On point however, I don't see a doubling of AMD cores as being a major benefit, unless the 'double-the-number-of-of-Intel-Cores' CPU is the same price or undercuts the Intel one.

We've been evaluating the newer AMD platforms for a bit, and compared against Intel systems with half the number of cores the performance improvement has been fairly minimal, and the cost benefits effectively in the negative. There is also no longer a compelling value proposition to AMD's offerings. You can buy cheap AMD's but they are cheap in every way.

My first real exposure to AMD has been in the initial Opteron / A64 heyday when we moved away from the flaming Xeons / P4's so it's a sad showing, but unfortunately for whatever technology AMD is lacking the catch-up curve is increasing day by day.

[clevin]

32 core PC vs Quad Core Mac

lol, If we want to do sincere comparison, we should look at how it works now, not 15 years ago,

http://myhaven.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/kernel_panic-1p0f.png

http://niallfiles.com/public/images/vista/vista-gadgets.jpg

:D:D:D

[MacBoobsPro]

Ah, the usual moronic Apple-addled responses. What a surprise.



My post above is somewhat tongue in cheek, but it is the main reason why I switched back in '98. I was fed up of rebooting and reinstalling Windows every month or so. Admittedly I wasn't as computer savvy back then and there were times when a reinstall was probably not needed but it did the trick albeit after hours of reinstalling. My point on the 32 core PC is what's the point if you spend most of your time sorting out conflicts and such? My sister bought a Vista laptop (after I told her not to) and the very same day she had to take it back because there was a software problem (she hadnt installed anything - she wouldnt know how to) and the 'tech guys' had to reinstall Vista. Since she got it back it goes to a black screen every so often and then auto restarts. No one can figure out whats wrong with it but all the hardware is according to the 'tech guys' fine. I avoid the thing because I don't want to get roped in on being the tech guy for it. She comes over to my house now to use my MB while her brand new laptop sits at home because the fault is inconsistent and can't be recreated by Dell or Tech Guys and so they wont/can't fix it.

I'm not looking for a war here I'm just responding to your post which seems to suggest my post is 'moronic' and based upon biased mac userness.

So to get back on track with the thread a 32 core computer is no good if it doesnt work correctly.

A 500bhp car with flat tires is not going to beat a 200bhp car that works.

lol, If we want to do sincere comparison, we should look at how it works now, not 15 years ago,


Since using OSX from 10.1 I've never had a kernel panic!

[clevin]

Since using OSX from 10.1 I've never had a kernel panic!

i think you know we can't use personal experience to evaluate the whole product.

so since 10.1, how many Windows blue screen did you have?;)

and for me, since using Vista, I never have one blue screen or white screen or silver screen or black screen of death.:D

Collectively, AFAIK, neither blue screen, nor kernel panic, is common for any user.

[Dustman]

i think you know we can't use personal experience to evaluate the whole product.

so since 10.1, how many Windows blue screen did you have?;)

and for me, since using Vista, I never have one blue screen or white screen or silver screen or black screen of death.:D

Collectively, AFAIK, neither blue screen, nor kernel panic, is common for any user.

The first week I upgraded to Vista (Brand new installation, only FireFox and Live Messenger Installed) I couldn't ever get it to boot without doing that stupid startup repair thing they have going on now. XP only ever blue screen maybe a couple times a year, but vista has atleast 3-4x that number. Mac on the other hand, only time it ever kernal paniced was when I put some Generic eBay ram into a G4.

I imagine Vista will get better with time though, as XP did. I think drivers are the main fault in Vista.. Microsoft really screwed over manufacturers with their new driver requirements.

[clevin]

The first week I upgraded to Vista (Brand new installation, only FireFox and Live Messenger Installed) I couldn't ever get it to boot without doing that stupid startup repair thing they have going on now. XP only ever blue screen maybe a couple times a year, but vista has atleast 3-4x that number. Mac on the other hand, only time it ever kernal paniced was when I put some Generic eBay ram into a G4.

I imagine Vista will get better with time though, as XP did. I think drivers are the main fault in Vista.. Microsoft really screwed over manufacturers with their new driver requirements.

idk, windows vista has so many different combinations of hardwares to care, I would definitely NOT rule out some people, such as yourself, encounter serious problems.

Im just saying, to judge a products, we need to look at the whole user base, and keep in mind OSX has predicted things to worry about while vista has more and unpredicted things to worry.

[Eraserhead]

We've been evaluating the newer AMD platforms for a bit, and compared against Intel systems with half the number of cores the performance improvement has been fairly minimal, and the cost benefits effectively in the negative. There is also no longer a compelling value proposition to AMD's offerings. You can buy cheap AMD's but they are cheap in every way.

This is an interesting point, certainly as far as real world usage is concerned. It makes sense as most programming is done single threaded (as it's "good enough") and mostly you are only using a full processor with one or maybe two threads at a time.

and for me, since using Vista, I never have one blue screen or white screen or silver screen or black screen of death.:D

Same here. The closest I've come to a real problem on my machine was having to install SP1 manually, though one of my friends PC's has stopped working when SP1 was installed.

[StateCCM]

32 core PC vs Quad Core Mac

why would a pc in the future run windows 95?

ure one of the idiots that steriotype PC saying that they bluescreen all the time. in fact, that BSOD is from windows 98 and 95. why dont u use a winxp BSOD. lemme awnser my own question, its because uve never seen one, it rarely happens.

[killmoms]

And the OP leaps back into the thread, not to address all the legitimate points about AMD's current failings (and the unlikeliness of their resurgence in the next year), but to dead with a Windows 95 bluescreen.

And with atrocious spelling and grammar, no less.

Frightful.

[Zwhaler]

why would a pc in the future run windows 95?

ure one of the idiots that steriotype PC saying that they bluescreen all the time. in fact, that BSOD is from windows 98 and 95. why dont u use a winxp BSOD. lemme awnser my own question, its because uve never seen one, it rarely happens.

Ookay, how about you address the fact that we totally disproved how Macs will get "pwnd"?

By the way, the BSOD in XP is more or less the same as it is on 95/98.

edit: nevermind, hes banned, its about time...

[ravenvii]

Finally, he boarded the failboat.

Farewell.
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u84/thekerosenekid/failboat.jpg

[burningrave101]

i dont think apple will want to migrate to AMD's x86-64 technology

You really shouldn't start threads like these if you don't even understand what x86-64 is lol. Intel designed the x86 architecture. All AMD did was take it one step further and add the extra 64-bit extension to the previous 32-bit.

You do know that the Athlon/64 and XP run was a very long run. AMD had a huge up on intel for years.
Before that AMD was still cheaper for how fast the chips where. Go back though history AMD and intel have been trading spot for a good while. Right now intel is up. AMD will more than likely replace that soon.

Sit back and watch they might let something big drop. Also I am willing to be AMD is reverse engineering intel chips. Intel did that on the Athlon. It just takes a while to reverse engineer the chip and then get something into productions.

For years? It wasn't THAT long. It was only the period of when the Athlon 64 launched up until Core 2 Duo's were released. AMD has been in Intel's dust ever since that point. The Pentium 4 with HyperThreading was faster than the Athlon XP's as soon as Intel started shipping chips clocked past 3Ghz. And then even at the A64 launch it was still somewhat of a draw in a lot of areas, especially video encoding and the Pentium 4 was still the better chip for multitasking due to the fact it had HyperThreading and the A64 was single core. The reason the A64 gained popularity so quick was because of reviewers posting primarily gaming benchmarks a lot of the time where the A64 excelled more because of the on-die memory controller. It wasn't until AMD started to increase clock speeds on the A64 line that AMD had a real clear advantage against Intel in most applications. That lasted a while since Intel failed miserably at first with Prescott. Then Intel finally got the die shrink down a little better and started shipping some better Prescott processors there at the last that were capable of clocking to 4Ghz or higher and that gave a lot of the A64 line a run for their money.

AMD has done real well over the years against the Chipzilla Intel though and have really hung in there with strong competition but right now they're hurting after trying to take on ATI. That was really the biggest mistake they could of made spending all that money to acquire ATI and now nVidia is spanking ATI in the performance crown. AMD is going to have to pull off a sink or swim before much longer because either their CPU or their GPU market is going to take them down.

[DoFoT9]

why would a pc in the future run windows 95?

ure one of the idiots that steriotype PC saying that they bluescreen all the time. in fact, that BSOD is from windows 98 and 95. why dont u use a winxp BSOD. lemme awnser my own question, its because uve never seen one, it rarely happens.

aaahhhhh what are you on?? xp BSOD's so many multiples more than ive ever seen in 95/98. you must re-image your 'just installed xp' HD everday :rolleyes:

[tom.]

I have had both Vista and XP BSODs, on several occasions. Xp way worse than Vista though, Vista has only BSOD when i upgraded it to 4GB RAM before Service Pack 1. It Blue screened on boot, took me a while to find out i needed to remove 2GB, install a knowledgebase update, and reinstall the 2GB.

I had XP for that long, i couldn't even tell you when, but I have seen so many BSOD from that OS.

Had 1 Kernel Panic never to be seen again, about 12 months ago on a MacBook, which later had its logic board replaced.

[DoFoT9]

...

Had 1 Kernel Panic never to be seen again, about 12 months ago on a MacBook, which later had its logic board replaced.

i find that if i have a kernal panic, its either from an external source, or a failing hardware component. and NEVER from the OS being badly coded itself..

for instance;

•kept getting about 3 kernal panics a day, turned out to be my lacie HD.

•old imac kept kernal panicing, turned out to be a bad dlink dongle

the list goes on!.....

[MacBoobsPro]

aaahhhhh what are you on?? xp BSOD's so many multiples more than ive ever seen in 95/98. you must re-image your 'just installed xp' HD everday :rolleyes:

Its ok the OP obviously knows what a Vista BSOD looks like because he told me I got it wrong :rolleyes:

Whats that word..? Oh yeh... pwned!

I now have to go shower after saying that.

[DoFoT9]

Its ok the OP obviously knows what a Vista BSOD looks like because he told me I got it wrong :rolleyes:

Whats that word..? Oh yeh... pwned!

I now have to go shower after saying that.

bahahaha, didnt see that other writing.

yea ahwell every1 makes mistakes, and every1 has opinions. my opinion is vista is crap :p