Declan_Vee wrote:While we're on the topic. How do the 64bit CPUs differ?
Kalium wrote:Declan_Vee wrote:While we're on the topic. How do the 64bit CPUs differ?
If you're doing 32-bit calculations, they're just more expensive.
el_farlo wrote:thats why i chose an athlon xp 2800+
Me wrote:I don't know where I'm going, but uhh...I'm definitely gonna think about it on the way.

I've actually heard the same thing. It may be the case, which makes Celerons excellent for overclocking. What I heard is that Celerons are Pentiums that don't quite meet spec, so they're downclocked to a Celeron spec that they do meet, and sold then. Some people undo this, and use the full potential of the chip (whatever the full potential of a Celeron may be).
The reason that you don't see that many name brand computers with AMD chips in them is really pretty simple. 1) long term proprietary contracts between the companys and Intel. 2) Name recognition. (your mom basically knows what a pentium is...does she know what an Atlon is? thought not) But ask just about anyone who has built their own computer what type of CPU is in their setup. I'm guessing you'll find that at least 80% have an AMD chip of some sort. I do.
Pentium-M was code-named "Banias", but is based off of the Pentium-III core which is based off the old Pentium Pro core.
If you're doing 32-bit calculations, they're just more expensive.
Kalium wrote:Where's DW when you need him?
narcted wrote:Good news for those who are confused. Intel will be changing the names of the processors to better reflect actual performance rather than just the clock speed. Article
Joykiller wrote:All that said, all we have left (realistically) are the chips from the fine folks at AMD. From the evidence that I have, AMD manufactures their chips in such a way that the internal architecture of the chip is radically different from a standard Pentium equivalent, which allows it to operate MUCH more efficently then it's counter parts. There are benchmarks out the ass to prove that to you. Clock cycle per Clock cycle, AMD chips do more work, and cost LESS then Pentiums.
Joykiller wrote:The reason that you don't see that many name brand computers with AMD chips in them is really pretty simple. 1) long term proprietary contracts between the companys and Intel. 2) Name recognition. (your mom basically knows what a pentium is...does she know what an Atlon is? thought not) But ask just about anyone who has built their own computer what type of CPU is in their setup. I'm guessing you'll find that at least 80% have an AMD chip of some sort. I do.
Chao wrote:Actually last month AMD outsold Intel for desktop processors. And Dell is now the only one of the major suppliers that still don't use AMD.
Kalium wrote:Declan_Vee wrote:While we're on the topic. How do the 64bit CPUs differ?
If you're doing 32-bit calculations, they're just more expensive.
dwchang wrote:Speaking of copying (like I said earlier), you guys HAVE TO know that Intel is copying our architecture for 64-bit x86 too right? They were so firm on the Itanium, but finally folded and are designing their own based on our ISA. Too bad consumers won't realize this and they copied us...again :-/.
Kalium wrote:If you're doing 32-bit calculations, they're just more expensive.
dwchang wrote:Anyway, I think that covers things. Now I realize (again) why I don't write here often.
mckeed wrote:Yes, Intel is copying the 64 bit architecture, but that should be no surprise to AMD. AMD itself started in the first place by reverse engineering the 286 and 386 processors as AMD was just the 2nd source of Intel chips back in the day when Intel had to outsource production as companies didn't like the idea of only one company making the chips and not in sufficient quantities.
Return to Video Hardware Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest