Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 20:26 UTC
Intel AnandTech puts Intel's new Ivy Bridge through its paces. "While it's not enough to tempt existing Sandy Bridge owners, if you missed the upgrade last year then Ivy Bridge is solid ground to walk on. It's still the best performing client x86 architecture on the planet and a little to a lot better than its predecessor depending on how much you use the on-die GPU."
Thread beginning with comment 515437
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by Radio
by ssokolow on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 22:14 UTC in reply to "Comment by Radio"
ssokolow
Member since:
2010-01-21

Same. I only buy AMD for my CPUs because I don't like what Intel did to them in the 386/486 years and I also disapprove of Intel's Microsoft-style "a SKU for every feature combination and woe be it if you don't anticipate every needed feature" approach to pricing.

(In case you weren't aware, Intel underestimated demand for 386 chips and had to cut a deal with AMD to use their fabs in exchange for sharing the 486 market. When the time came, they said "We've changed our mind... oh, and if you sue us for breach of contract, our lawyers are better and we'll just bleed you dry in court.)

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[2]: Comment by Radio
by Delgarde on Tue 24th Apr 2012 01:55 in reply to "RE: Comment by Radio"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

Same. I only buy AMD for my CPUs because I don't like what Intel did to them in the 386/486 years


You're holding a grudge for something a company did more than twenty years ago? Some of their current employees probably weren't even born then...

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by Radio
by johann1s on Tue 24th Apr 2012 02:27 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Radio"
johann1s Member since:
2012-04-24

Intel's business practices have been suspect for the last two decades, what makes you think they've changed?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Radio
by Radio on Tue 24th Apr 2012 07:01 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Radio"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

The Intel antitrust case is seven years old. I don't remember it led to a shuffle in the executive ranks.

Their strategy of kneecaping their products and planned obsolescence and "trusted computing" (system-wide DRM) and UEFI lockdown and "unlockable (*for a fee*) cores" is right now.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Radio
by bassbeast on Wed 25th Apr 2012 05:22 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Radio"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

Actually the got busted for bribing the OEMs to take netburst just a few years ago (and paid AMD 1.25 Billion to drop their lawsuit) and the compiler rigging last I checked has been ongoing. You can take a Via CPU (the only chip that lets you change CPUID) from "Centaur hauls) to "Genuine Intel" and magically the chip will gain as much as 30% in the benches! Why? Because most of the benchmark software is compiled with the Intel compiler.

If you want to see how obvious the rigging is look at Atom VS Brazos benches, you'll see that the in order Atom will magically beat an out of order brazos in many of the benches, yet we know in order CPUs are generally easier to stall and slower than out of order CPUs.

But sadly while I as a system builder have been supporting AMD for the past 3 years since all that came out once the socket AM3 chips run out if they haven't replaced the Bulldozer arch i'll have no choice but to go Intel. Bulldozer is the AMD's Netburst, its a bad design and I seriously doubt ANY updates via Piledriver or Excavator are gonna help. the moron that decided that you could call a quad with hardware assisted hyperthreading an octocore was an idiot and because of how much it costs to implement their boneheaded design (two integer cores forced to share a single FP unit) they have NO choice but to charge like the virtual cores were real, even Intel hasn't the guts to pull that.

Frankly for us system builders once the AM3 stocks run out they really have no compelling offerings. I suppose I'll use Bobcats for small office boxes and Liano for HTPCs but that's about it, they really don't have a successor for Thuban, heck you can't even attempt to unlock cores on BD/PD and in fact if you disable half the cores (killing the HT and leaving each core with its own FP unit) you get improved performance! If they sold the BD/PD chips as what they are, duals, triples, and quad with HT they might be more compelling but their pricing right now is in i5 territory and that chip curb stomps it. But if they don't change direction most of the guys I talked to will go Intel, simply because they don't want BD/PD, its just a bad arch.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Radio
by Kebabbert on Wed 25th Apr 2012 11:58 in reply to "RE: Comment by Radio"
Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

(In case you weren't aware, Intel underestimated demand for 386 chips and had to cut a deal with AMD to use their fabs in exchange for sharing the 486 market. When the time came, they said "We've changed our mind... oh, and if you sue us for breach of contract, our lawyers are better and we'll just bleed you dry in court.)

Do you have links on this? Sorry, but I am not going to trust a post on the internet, without more proof...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Radio
by zima on Sun 29th Apr 2012 17:14 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Radio"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Perhaps he got it a bit backwards, but quickly checking the most straightforward place and doing a ctrl+f gives:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel#Slowing_demand_and_challenges_to...

The lawsuits were noted to significantly burden the competition with legal bills, even if Intel lost the suits.[27]
"Bill Gates Speaks", page 29. ISBN 978-0-471-40169-8


Perhaps he got it a bit backwards... Intel specifically worked to stop 2nd sources by then, and through litigation blocked AMD386 for many years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Am386
(or: it was a bit like he says, but 286 & 386, not 386 & 486)

Yeah, many might scoff at it "oh, over 2 decades ago" ...but all this shaped the present landscape. Plus Intel didn't play nice a mere less than a decade ago, which quite possibly impacted resources AMD could direct towards R&D and fab development.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_v._Intel
In November 2009, Intel agreed to pay AMD $1.25 billion as part of a deal to settle all outstanding legal disputes between the two companies.[6][7]

You don't just pay such amount if your hands are clean. Then there's 250 million to Transmeta and:
In May 2009, the EU found that Intel had engaged in anti-competitive practices and subsequently fined Intel €1.06 billion (US$1.44 billion)

Reply Parent Score: 2