AMD or Intal

[jmcilhinney]

[QUOTE=jmcilhinney;3835409]Are you saying that AMD has a mainstream desktop processor that can match the top i7 for pure speed?

Exactly what part of my post made you ask that?

That would be this part:

I'm going to have to disagree with "Intel giving the best raw performance".

If you disagree that Intel wears the performance crown then then you believe that AMD has equal or better performance. We're talking mainstream desktop processors here, i.e. Core and Phenom, not Xeon and Opteron. Everything I've read says that the top Core i7 is faster than the top Phenom. I wouldn't buy one, but facts is facts

[FireXtol]

Are you saying that AMD has a mainstream desktop processor that can match the top i7 for pure speed?
That would be this part:
If you disagree that Intel wears the performance crown then then you believe that AMD has equal or better performance. We're talking mainstream desktop processors here, i.e. Core and Phenom, not Xeon and Opteron. Everything I've read says that the top Core i7 is faster than the top Phenom. I wouldn't buy one, but facts is facts

You don't get to decide what I'm talking about! There's no logic to your argument. If one was to consider a $1000 6 core i7, why would they not consider a 12 core Opteron for about the same price or less, or 2P or 4P Opteron setups also for around the same price or less? Clearly, they are going for performance unmatched by your average 'desktop processor'. Fact or not? "I really want performance, but I'm unwilling to save money by going to more reliable server processors from a different vendor." Is that really the logic you're trying to state as "facts is facts"? Yea, sure, Intel wears the performance crown if you're completely oblivious to workstation hardware. Can't even use ECC on an i7, but I'm sure you're also oblivious to the implications of that.

The i7 is also faster than a Xeon is some benchmarks, and in others a Xeon is faster, and in others an Opteron wins(or in some instances, for Xeon or Opteron it's often multiple CPUs, such as 2P, 4P or more). There is no one 'ultimate' processor(or rather a better term would be system) for every single application(as a processor is worthless outside a system). Get your facts straight.

I made it very clear what I was talking about.

@Shaggy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wintel I guess if you ignore the implications of the term.... It's a term used to describe the partnership between Windows and Intel specifically, one that's still going strong to this day, but Microsoft has also diversified, notably Windows XP(and NT also ran on other architectures). Such I'm sure didn't make Intel happy, but they decided to supply Apple. Regardless, Wintel has not lost significance(for whatever reasons). It isn't as limited as you claim, and your claimed origins are incorrect(incomplete at best).

What competition? Apple has never been competition. Microsoft bailed Apple out of bankruptcy(and sold the stock they bought for a huge profit!). Apple would not exist without Bill Gates. Bill and Steve are very good friends. I'm sure a huge reason for Microsoft saving Apple(apart from a fairly solid investment, and their friendship) from doom was to avoid more monopoly law suits. Microsoft has absolutely nothing to worry about from Apple. Apple is good for Microsoft.

[dilettante]

What competition? Apple has never been competition. Microsoft bailed Apple out of bankruptcy(and sold the stock they bought for a huge profit!). Apple would not exist without Bill Gates. Bill and Steve are very good friends. I'm sure a huge reason for Microsoft saving Apple(apart from a fairly solid investment, and their friendship) from doom was to avoid more monopoly law suits. Microsoft has absolutely nothing to worry about from Apple. Apple is good for Microsoft.

That's pretty much how I recollect the events too.

I remember a time of great computational diversity on the desktop. You not only had different CPU options, you had different approaches to video hardware and how it was coupled to the CPU, different options for internal I/O and external networks and buses, a great deal of diversity in operating systems, and a price range for every budget.

Then we had the beginnings of the Great Charade of "competition" between Microsoft and Apple, predating the desperate bailout of Apple. Basically Apple threw it's slimy arm around Microsoft's shoulder and began bludgeoning the world with the message that all other alternatives were poor choices.


Not only does Apple not compete with Microsoft, they were almost solely behind the effort to squash all real forms of competition.

All we're left with now is the hokey, jokey Linux and aging forms of BSD Unix... and even those are pretty much relegated to running on hardware designed for Microsoft Windows except for very rare and expensive exceptions. Sun and the other remaining Unix vendors are in an entirely different price range and exceedingly rare in sheer numbers.


If Microsoft is evil Apple is beyond redemption.

[FunkyDexter]

You don't get to decide what I'm talking about!

But you were happy to decide (and miss-interpret) what JM was talking about. What he originally posted was true, Intel chips ARE more powerful IF your willing to pay the premium. Or to put it another way, the power band that Intel offers extends further upward than AMD's. Porsche 911s perform better than Ford Fiestas - if you're willing to pay the premium to buy one. What you appear to be saying (and I only bother to put it in those terms so that I won't be deemed to be "deciding" what you're saying) is that AMD offers you alot more power at a given price point... which is also exactly what JM said.

If Microsoft is evil Apple is beyond redemption.

I definitely agree with that!

[Shaggy Hiker]

Go away for a few days and the world passes you by.

@Shaggy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wintel I guess if you ignore the implications of the term.... It's a term used to describe the partnership between Windows and Intel specifically, one that's still going strong to this day, but Microsoft has also diversified, notably Windows XP(and NT also ran on other architectures). Such I'm sure didn't make Intel happy, but they decided to supply Apple. Regardless, Wintel has not lost significance(for whatever reasons). It isn't as limited as you claim, and your claimed origins are incorrect(incomplete at best).

The link is an article describing the evolution of the PC industry more than anything else. It doesn't speak to the origin or usage of the term "Wintel" other than to mention what it means, which it does in a slightly bizarre form when it suggests that the term didn't exist before MS released Windows. Therefore, in no way does it contradict what I stated the origin of the term to be.

What competition? Apple has never been competition.

It most certainly HAS been competition. Everything else you state has to do with the collapse of Apple around the first departure of Steve Jobs and the disaster of OS7/8. The company is considerably older, and was very direct competition in the earlier years. By the time that Jobs left, MS had clearly won, and Apple was floundering, but they certainly weren't floundering in the 80's when the competition was hottest. What I am saying is that the Wintel term came from this competition, which you could see by reading the MacUser and InCider magazines from the 90's (the actual term couldn't have preceded Windows, of course, but the rivalry that caused Apple faithful to need to brand MS/Intel originated earlier).

Of course, what you see in those magazines is not the view of Apple. What you see is the view of the faithful, and they were well versed in self deception during that time. Apple added to the fire a bit with a few notable ad campaigns of the day, and still pumps it up with the Mac vs PC ads, but the torch was mainly carried by the consumers, not the company. The terminology used to denigrate the non-believers was largely enforced by the partisan media, and Wintel was one of those terms.

Were there other groups going after MS/Intel at the time? Linux wasn't around, PS/2 wasn't around, CP/M wasn't really around. That leaves only the Unix flavor users, and they had no coherent voice. Who was there who so needed a name to brand the competition other than the Apple faithful?

[FunkyDexter]

That leaves only the Unix flavor users, and they had no coherent voice

That's because the enormous beards muffled clear speech.