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 515630
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by Radio
by bassbeast on Wed 25th Apr 2012 05:22 UTC 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[4]: Comment by Radio
by lubod on Wed 25th Apr 2012 06:47 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Radio"
lubod Member since:
2009-02-02

Bassbeast, I found your analysis of current AMD/Intel CPUs interesting, informative, and probably in line with my own opinion, more or less.

But will somebody please take the urban myth that "Microsoft saved Apple in the 1990's" out back behind the tool shed and put a bullet in its head?

Microsoft didn't help out Apple, they helped themselves! Apple, even at their lowest point (remember their shares at $10 per? I do.) never, EVER had a market cap much below $1 billion (1 with 9 zeros) that I recall. How could 180 million (only 6 zeros there) "save" such a company? Especially given its often criticized high profit margins? What investor would have turned them down for a loan?

By investing, Microsoft was buying good PR, convincing the US DOJ and the EU that they still had viable competitors, convincing mixed Mac/Windows shops they had confidence in Apple to survive (at least in the short term), and buying the installation of IE as a default browser on the only other large-scale commercial OS in the marketplace. Not to mention putting the Apple "look and feel" lawsuits to bed forever with money, the way they never could in court.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by Radio
by zima on Mon 30th Apr 2012 23:50 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Radio"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Those two things (MS helped Apple, and MS helped themselves) aren't exclusive.

You yourself almost write how it restored long-term confidence in Apple, a company visibly straying on its path at the time (or even failing as that company - what came of it wasn't strictly the same Apple, but also a corporate coup of sorts from Next).
A company on a shaky ground because of inferior and more expensive offerings - but with a bit crazy followers readily buying them to "help save Apple" ( http://www.forbes.com/1997/08/08/column.html )

And the suit was put to bed in court ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corp... ), there were just some lingering squabble.

Edited 2012-04-30 23:53 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2